500 words a day on whatever I want

Occupy Central (佔中)

Occupy Central (佔領中環 or just 佔中), dubbed the Umbrella Revolution in the Western press, is the protest for full democracy in Hong Kong that started in September 2014. Central is the main business district in Hong Kong where it started. It is the strongest such protest in China since Tiananmen Square in 1989.

Demands:

Hong Kong’s Chief Executive, CY Leung, to step down.

China to uphold Hong Kong’s Basic Law, as it promised when Britain handed back Hong Kong in 1997. Article 45 of the Basic Law states:

“The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures.”

China has promised the “universal suffrage” part by 2017, but not the bit about a “broadly representative nominating committee”. It wants to pack the committee so that the Communist Party can in effect block nominations.

Protests: In a showdown that has been building for months, Scholarism began protesting on September 13th, later joined by HKFS. The sight of police beating up peaceful students and using pepper spray on the 26th and 27th and then tear gas on the 28th brought tens of thousands onto the streets to join the protests.

Police deploying tear gas in the crowd in Central. Images like these have been blocked in Mainland China.

The protests spread from Central to Causeway Bay and Mongkok. OCLP, which had called for protests on October 1st, National Day, a holiday, started three days early.

During the holidays as many as 200,000 protested throughout the city.

Protesters have been amazingly peaceful and orderly. They even sort their recyclables! But it seems that hired thugs are trying to egg them into open violence, which would give the police an excuse to crack down.

Right now (October 7th) the protesters and the government are deadlocked but talking. A dialogue meeting is scheduled for Friday (October 10th), open to the press.

China accuses the West for encouraging the protests, including the US, where the story is barely covered (ISIS and Ebola are the big news stories there).

China took over Hong Kong in 1997 under a “one country, two systems” philosophy, leaving Hong Kong pretty much untouched. But more from necessity than niceness:

In 2003 when it tried to limit free speech, 500,000 protested.

In 2012 when it tried to introduce “patriotic” (communist) education, 100,000 protested under Scholarism.

A military crackdown would likely backfire: a million Hong Kongers – much of the business and professional class – have foreign passports. Many would leave. It would also destroy any chance of China peacefully reuniting with (democratic) Taiwan. Yet the Communist Party fears that demands for democracy will spread to other cities.

Censorship: What people in China know about the protests is strictly controlled and censored. While Hong Kong has full Internet access, the rest of China is cut off from Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, Facebook and WordPress (and therefore this blog). Weibo, a big microblogging site, has been scrubbed clean of any open support for the protests.

It’s important to view with a grain of salt any uprisings around the world. The West manipulates these situations like crazy. This may be genuine, and even if it is, that doesn’t mean it won’t be exploited. And if the West is involved it won’t be because it cares about the Chinese. It will be because the West wants to re-colonize the Chinese.

It was young, idealistic students in the Balkans who brought down Milosovic with the Optar! movement. They used non-violent tactics to topple their government. Their logo was a power salute and they often quoted MLK. They are now disillusioned as they realize they were duped into becoming an impoverished colony, once again.

[…] Occupy Central (佔領中環 or just 佔中), dubbed the Umbrella Revolution in the Western press, is the protest for full democracy in Hong Kong that started in September 2014. Central is the main business district in Hong Kong where it started. It is the strongest such protest in China since Tiananmen Square in 1989.Demands: Hong Kong’s Chief Executive, CY Leung, to step down.China to uphold Hong Kong’s Basic Law, as it promised when Britain handed back Hong Kong in 1997. Article 45 of the Basic Law states:“The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures.”China has promised the “universal suffrage” part by 2017, but not the bit about a “broadly representative nominating committee”. It wants to pack the committee so that the Communist Party can in effect block nominations.- Click through for more – […]

Hong Kong University’s Weiboscope project has been a key source in tracking the nature of what is getting censored and deleted on the internet in China.

I don’t think there has been much impact on ongoing trade shows. The convention and exhibitions centres are not being blocked and anything scheduled there is continuing as planned.

To tell the truth, there is little impact on most people. Some are experiencing some inconvenience (eg, rerouting their commuting pattern and requiring more time to get to their destination if they rely on ground transportation) but otherwise, most people are going to work, school, etc. as usual. Kindergartens that are near the sites are still closed. There has been no interruption in the MTR (subway) or commuter trains or light rail transit lines. Taxi drivers on the morning shift might have seen a slight drop in business, but taxi drivers on the overnight shift might have seen an uptick as demonstrators need to get home after the subway closes.

Most impacted are the businesses immediately surrounding the demonstration sites that rely on tourists for business, including a few hotels and tour operators and high end stores and jewelry stores, as well as small operators on the lanes and alleys next to the demonstration sites due to a reduction in foot traffic. A few banks directly facing the demonstration sites are still closed.

New development: The govt spokesman Mr. Lau Kong-wah indicated that they have not agreed to a venue for the dialogue meeting on Friday. They are also looking for a moderator, as the govt is concerned it will devolve into chaos.

America will not put into news anything that does not appear to be a threat to them. Thus us barely seeing this on the news.

Or, to look at it another way, US (and UK) media tend not to show popular protest/uprising/revolution unless it is in a context that serves US and UK political agendas and aims.

Revolutions against the kinds of regime that don’t conform to the template our governments wish to promote and spread are fine and will make the news. We will be subtly encouraged to root for a particular side.

HK is a rich, financially important, developed capitalist hub – an Alpha+ city. Our governments and their puppet media don’t want people to start thinking that popular uprisings might occur in places with big businesses, high-rise office blocks etc…

How ironic that we keep seeing protest movements in the world inspired by American protests, yet our media (visual, television media specifically) only haphazardly covers those movements and mostly as passing spectacle with no real deep analysis of their history or makeup. To ask about production of iPhone components is a crucial question: Apple corporation is deeply in bed with the American corpo-military-intelligence complex and that complex owns our congress, president, and news media, so yes the news coverage here is sparse and shallow. America doesn’t want to deeply cover international evidence of the human legitimacy of our own OCCUPY Movement which we un democratically abused, harassed, and then violently routed!

For many in the USA, I don’t think they see it as impacting them. I don’t believe many even know or care that China makes their iphones. I remember when it first came out a lot of people thought China had stolen the blue print to the iPhone and was selling the bootleg.

As sad and naive as that sounds that is generally what I get from the Americans I interact with. I spoke with one lady the other day about this and she believes the issue is as simple as the Chinese do not realize that democracy takes time.

Whether or not they continue to have China make their iphones depends on how much they feel they can throw their weight around in regards to the new changes.

You’d have to be bold in order to protest in China. Even though Hong Kong is admittedly more free than the mainland, it’s still China, and the Communist Party does not take kindly to social unrest. They’ve killed many peaceful protesters throughout the years, not just at Tianamen Square. So I admire the protesters’ efforts.

@sharinalr

“I spoke with one lady the other day about this and she believes the issue is as simple as the Chinese do not realize that democracy takes time.”

Many Americans aren’t aware that China does have some level of democracy, which is the elections to the People’s Congress, even if it is just one party. So China is not as undemocratic as many Americans believe.

Meanwhile in America, there are still residents who don’t have the same democratic rights as everyone else.

From the Weiboscope link, : “Time’s Myth”: [Difference is household registration] Giving birth in Hong Kong, the baby will obtain Hong Kong citizenship; Giving birth in the USA, the baby will obtain US citizenship […] Giving birth in China, the baby is not necessarily Chinese citizen, it may become illegal because the legal status of life originates from the government’s “birth permission”.
I wonder if birth permits are an issue in this protest?

As to the iphone, I read a while back that Apple’s factory had to put up nets to prevent more suicide deaths. I have also read of people dying from the fumes in shoe factories. A lot of the products we buy in the US that are made in China are actually manufactured by American corporations but the blame always seem to go to China instead of the American corporations. Similar to the corporations that were polluting the Rio Grande river in Texas and causing babies to be born without brains,but once it showed up on the other side of the border, then it became a concern.

I really see it as censoring in a way. They are keeping you from knowing what is going on. I can guarantee there is a reporter who wrote the story up and was ready to go for it and the U.S. and U.K. media quickly squashed it or made it so tiny and irrelevant that no one would see it to care.

@resw77

Very true. Even as of late I have heard people refer to china as a “communist country”. I feel that those type labels are scare tactics to get people to shy away from or oppose anything that is not what they feel is fully in line with the western world.

@Jefe

It seemed as if she was talking about the country as a whole. Also she seemed very uncomfortable talking about the situation. She would say they have some rights and so it is getting better and then repeat that they do not understand that democracy takes time.

Which brings me to something else….Why does it seem like a no no or in poor taste for Americans to address the happenings of the world? Even in me bring up this situation with my friend it was as if she rather not be talking about it, but politely participated. Like a fear or nervousness.

I’ve noticed this. I think it’s a combination of anti-intellectualism and a fear of showing one’s political leanings as talk about religion, race, sexuality and their effects on who should get what, might come into the picture. You can see offshoots of it in the way the word “liberal” is sometimes used as a noun and tossed around like it’s some kind of slur, much like “illegal”.

Dialogue talks were scheduled for tomorrow Friday, but Chief secretary Carrie Lam informed the student leaders this evening that as a prerequisite to engaging in dialogue, they must clear the streets first, otherwise they will authorize the police to use whatever means to enforce that.

Anyhow, they said, the numbers have dwindled since last week, so why keep the streets tied up.

The HKFS leaders just stated that this reflects insincerity on the government to enter into meaningful dialogue. It looks like the dialogue has been stalled.

I have been seeing posts popping up on facebook now. They are saying if the govt wants everyone back on the streets, then back on the streets it is.

I forgot to mention something that TIME brought up. The pro-democracy legislators in Legco have now stepped forward behind the students (up to now, their support has been more passive). They vowed to block all funding requests in Legco until the govt engages in meaningful dialogue.

I was watching the CCTV (China Central TV) broadcast this morning before Carrie Lam’s announcement. They did mention the Occupy Central event, but only presented the govt side, even specifying that the agenda for the meeting was what the govt specified it would be (not what the students spelled out). They only interviewed adults on the street that condemned the protests and the “illegal” behavior of the students. None of the protestors point of view was mentioned.

At least the local TV does present both sides. The local newspapers are divided however, between pro-govt and pro-protestors. It is obvious as day and night how the local newspapers stand.

Analysis about which groups in HK would have likely been responsible for advising CY Leung to instruct the HK police to deploy tear gas on the protestors. They believe that it could not possibly be the police themselves nor the pro-Beijing govt officials nor the business community.

The same website advise that an “Occupy Tiananmen” is now trending on twitter, advising people to show up on Saturday with umbrellas, with some veterans (eg, Hu Jia) from the 1989 Tiananmen protest retweeting it.

Now, Twitter is BLOCKED in Mainland China. Some people can still access it via various VPN which can sometimes navigate around the firewall. People may find other ways to spread the information without it being squashed by the internet police. But, we can be sure that the internet police are watching and have at least caught it. Will they send a huge police force to clear the square in Beijing? Let’s see.

It would also be funny if thousands of police show up for a nothing event. or if the actual event was elsewhere where the police did not show up.

I am not even connected to the organizers of the event, but have been receiving and seeing messages to go back to Central tomorrow (Fri) night and maybe Saturday. I do think tens of thousands, if not more will be showing up. They are very angry that the govt has called off dialogue talks on Friday.

I have to work early this sat and sun, and traveling to China sun. pm, so it is problematic for me to attend. But as a consolation I can get a taste of the censorship in China first hand early next week.

Umbrellas were used to guard against pepper spray, but were not so effective against tear gas. I just met one of my friends who was only about 2-3m from the police when the tear gas was deployed last time. He reminded me that now, volunteers have either been giving away free gas masks at the protest sites, and many have been manufacturing makeshift ones to bring – this time, the protestors will be armed with protection gear.

I was told that foreign suppliers of tear gas have stopped sales to HK. If they run out, they will have to buy from China.

If the police try to clear the streets again, they will have to accelerate to more potent forms of force. Few believe that they will actually progress to rubber bullets or water cannons or any lethal weapon.

Paid thugs and off-duty police plants have yet to engage the protestors in any form of violence. There are signs posted all around the protest sites reminding everyone not to be violent, that this is a peaceful protest. After 12 days, no protestor has been pushed into violence yet.

So far, Beijing has remained in the shadows, insisting that “Occupy Central” is an issue that will be handled by Hong Kong itself under the “One Country, Two Systems” principle. So, naturally they cannot let CY Leung step down as that will force Beijing to come in and appoint a replacement before the next election.

However, in the meantime, they are digging up dirt on the Chief Executive, including
– conflict of interest arising from receiving payments from a foreign firm after announcing his candidacy for the chief executive
– No evidence that the consultancy contract with the firm has ever been terminated
– failure to pay taxes regarding these payments in any jurisdiction where they may be due

Investigation is continuing, and may take time, but pro-democratic legislators have vowed to seek impeachment if any wrongdoing is proven.

Even if he has been anointed by Beijing, it now looks even more doubtful he will last until 2017.

Day 13: The protest sites have all filled with people already. Maybe 100,000 already and growing. This time they brought tents and mattresses.

The student leaders said they will not actively try to engage the government anymore, but wait for the govt to approach them.

The transport department also negotiated with the protestors to open the tram (trolley) tracks through Central, as Happy Valley, which does not have an MTR stop, has been totally cut off from tram service.

Could this piece of dirt that they picked up anonymously on CY Leung on his undisclosed potentially “illegal” compensation a carefully planned ploy by Beijing to find an exit strategy for CY Leung without damaging the legitimacy of the CCP? I mean they could remove CY Leung without forcing him to step down in response to the protests, but due to some alleged illegal activity. It saves face for everyone, encourages the students to back down, and keeps the CCP power and control intact. They can just find another puppet with a secret undisclosed piece of dirt locked away in a closet and brought out just for moments like these.

Then CY could just “disappear”.

I mean this news came out anonymously out of the blue.

I think that the priority demand from the students and other protestors should never be to force CY Leung to step down, but to focus on candidate nomination reform.

I would say there is a 99% chance that the Party is setting up Leung’s exit. I mean, what are the odds that this would come up at this point by accident? My guess is that they hope that Leung’s exit will take the wind out of the sails of the protest.

I think it is timed almost exactly at the same time the chief secretary Carrie Lam cancelled the dialogue with the students (on the same day). Too suspicious for my taste.

As the students and the others would not remove themselves from the streets, even with the planned dialogue. So that failed. So, what’s left but plant some dirt on CY Leung to leave gracefully, based on information produced anonymously!

I bet the CCP have been busy discussing his replacement and they summoned CY Leung to Guangzhou this weekend to inform him of the strategy.

This past weekend there was a revival of the protestor rally in the main sites, where over 100,000 showed up after the decision to cancel the dialogue.

I had to do a work trip in China and got back last night. Just 2 days across the border and so much can happen!

And wordpress is blocked there, so I cannot normally check it.

– First of all, the free HK TV stations (and a few of the cable / broadband stations) are broadcast in the greater pearl river delta across the border, so I was wondering how they would handle it.
They would show part of it, when they were interviewing government officials or the police. However, any image or sound of protestors was blocked out and replaced with Hong Kong public service announcements, which could last for 10 minutes. then it would switch to the Ebola and ISIS reports and sports and weather.
But the free TV stations tend not to express opinion of the government, but the opinion of individuals only. The broadband / cable news in HK that gives more air time to the protestors is not shown at all in China. One mandarin language HK cable station is shown in China, but when images of protestors were about to be shown, they replace the screen with an image of a cow on a dairy farm.

Mainland China TV just brands the whole thing as illegal and that the government will take action according to the law.

Another major crackdown took place yesterday

– yesterday (Tue) morning police seems to have taken advantage of dwindling numbers of protestors in the early morning hours to use dismantle many of the road obstructions in Causeway Bay and Admiralty, allowing the tram (streetcar) and buses to use the route. They came out in large numbers and used force (very heavy handed strong arm tactics and pepper spray) to force the protestors to retreat. They forcibly removed many protestors, cuffing some with plastic strips. A few officers got injured, eg, by umbrellas that protestors were using to protect them from pepper spray.
Cranes were brought in to remove debris from the dismantling.
– overnight in the wee hours of the morning, they also came out in large numbers to remove more obstructions. They said they were not dispersing the area, but just clearing the roads for traffic. But they obviously used heavy handed tactics and more pepper spray.

– Chen Zuo’er, former deputy director at the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office back on Aug 30 warned that there could be bloodshed if the Occupy Central protest actually took place. Thank God that did not happen, but he stated publicly yesterday that the Occupy Central movement was a conspiracy plot and Chief Executive CY Leung is a “hard bone” (ie, unbreakable) who uses counter measures in accordance with the law.

What is next? water cannons?

What impresses me about HK compared to the US is how peaceful, orderly and tidy demonstrations are here. There is no looting or vandalism or private property damage (could say that some public property was moved to create barracades) and injuries are not normally caused by any protestor. The US brings out militarized police in riot gear when just a few hundred show up. People get shot and killed.

CNN just discussed this
(edition.cnn.com/2014/10/15/world/asia/hong-kong-police-protest-video/index.html)

It turns out that the victim in the video (Ken Tsang) is a registered member of the Civic Party of Hong Kong, one of the pro-democracy parties and he is also on the committee of 1200 that gets to elect the Chief executive.

Gee.

We are having a major turning point in Hong Kong right now.

Hongkongers have never thought of their police as major perpetrators of brutality. People usually cooperate with the police.

Now Hongkongers are increasingly growing mistrustful of the police and are concerned that they will start to exercise unprovoked brutality. This Occupy Central has been setting off alarming precedents.

But we can be sure that the start of this brutality did not originally come from the police itself, but they have received top down orders, most likely from the Central Govt Policy unit.

One thing I really hated about the USA was its police brutality. Will it become part of the culture here too? 😮

Violent scuffles erupted multiple times last night / this morning again between the police and protesters early this morning as protesters erected barriers and police chased them with batons, shields and pepper spray.

The police involved in the beating of Civic Party member Ken Tsang yesterday morning have now been suspended from duty.

Ken Tsang went to speak in Central, encouraging protesters not to counter violence with violence.

As much as the recent violence of the police has shocked people’s sensibilities, I still think the police in the USA are much more brutal and get away with that brutality. The HK officers were caught beating and kicking someone and now have been suspended. In the USA, the police can shoot, even kill unarmed nonviolent persons and not even get a slap on the wrist. If this kind of non-violent protest had formed in the USA, we would have seen seen militarized armed forces pointing deadly ammunition at the protesters.

I am not happy living in a place where we now have precedents where nonviolent political crises are handled by sending police to use force to restore order. But USA is even worse.

We are now getting a taste of how Mainland China handles political crises, esp. those that challenge party authority – violent crackdown. The HK Chief Executive was powerless (or inept) to anticipate or even handle this. His reliance on direction / instruction from the Central govt makes it difficult to understand what “One Country, Two Systems” really means. And if I were a Taiwanese, I wouldn’t have any faith that it could mean anything.

5am this morning, police organized a raid on the Mongkok (Kowloon) occupation. Armed in riot gear, hundreds of police removed the barricades and structures and pushed the protesters out of the streets. Are these scenes being shown in western media?

I noticed CNN had an update today. They included a chilling video. Can you tell me what you think of it?
(edition.cnn.com/2014/10/16/world/asia/hong-kong-protests/index.html)

Protestors reclaimed the area that police had taken over just the morning before.

It looks so strange to see images of police storming a place at 5am to remove people, only for them to come back with reinforcements to push back the police. It is like a turf war between civil disobedience and the police.

Mongkok in Kowloon is under siege at 1am. Protestors and police are having a standoff.
I just received pictures from someone working as a security guard at the HSBC building there, right where the standoff is taking place, in addition to seeing live broadcast on TV.

If this had been like Tiananmen in 1989, they would have already sent in the tanks and shoot live ammunition into the crowd. As it is, police now can only use pepper spray and beat people with batons. Tear gas is no longer used. They are afraid 100,000 people will come out again.

Mongkok is perhaps the busiest, densest commercial area in the entire world, and is surrounded by the world’s densest population districts.

Yesterday Police were confiscating umbrellas from protestors protecting themselves, citing them as “weapons”. After they seize the umbrellas, they then beat protestors with batons and direct pepper spray. Really looks pathetic to me.

2 days ago, people satirized police assertions that umbrellas were being used as weapons against them in the same vein that “Wong Fei Hung”, the hero of the 1960s HK martial films (Wuxia pian) that sometimes depicted the hero as having the ability of using an umbrella to foil his adversaries.

OMG, resorting to claiming protestors have the magical ability of comic book heroes, while the police are armed with batons, pepper spray and shields while the protestors are carrying no weapons (other than umbrellas).

After several protestors got their arms broken by police batons, some have escalated their protection equipment. Not only are they carrying gas masks to the protest sites, they are wrapping their arms in thick foam protection to protect against batons strikes to the arms and they are also carrying plastic shields which might deflect some of the pepper spray back to the police.

I watched the ABC nightly news here. No mention of HK at all. The sight of police beating people really offends sensibilities in HK. They are not used to this.

One more thing – the Chief executive has reiterated assertions that the protestors are being supported by foreign governments and aid organizations to spur this on.

All the students flatly deny this.

I find it really hard to believe that either. But it is typical of China to blame all civil unrest on foreigners.It just shows me that HK is becoming more and more like mainland China.

What I think – they need something from the HK govt to show to people in mainland china that foreigners are trying to topple China, and beef up the effort to build home country nationalism and pro-government supports on the mainland. Foreigners are a typical scapegoat.

They are not showing the protestor’s voices on the mainland, so I cannot help but think that this is an effort to control the people on the other side of the border.

I do think that Americans, Britons and others in the West should take notice of this. They are trying to pin this protest on foreigners and foreign agitators.

Many in HK think the US is broke. They cannot afford to get involved in a battle in Asia. But we are already in Day 23 of the protest. Will China let it last more than a month?

Last Tuesday’s dialogue was blocked in Mainland China, but feedback from friends told me that that the students overwhelmingly outperformed the government officials.

Anson Chan, former Chief secretary of HK at the end of the British colonial administration and the first term of post-1997 SAR also came on western media to proclaim the students as the clear winner in that dialogue. She expressed confidence that the torch will successfully be passed to a new generation of leaders based on the what has unfolded over the past several weeks.

Nevertheless, as we enter day 29 of the protests, the situation is still in stalemate.

It is interesting to witness how the news about Hong Kong is presented across the border in Mainland China.

• Scenes from the protest sites looked like they were taken at about 6am on side streets with few people present. All was shown was empty streets with barricades and a few isolated tents.
• None of the protestors had their faces shown on TV or in the news, and no interview of them was shown. Only anti-occupy sympathisers are interviewed about the inconvenience caused them.
• Key leaders in the protest (eg, Benny Tai of OCLP, Alex Chow and Lester Shum of HKFS and Joshua Wong are noticeably absent
• Without fail adding “illegal” in front of any reference to the occupation
• Soundbites from Chief Executive CY Leung, Chief Secretary Carrie Lam, the deputy chief police spokesperson, etc. ordering people to leave the sites and go home, and reiterating the disruption they are causing by their illegal action
• Implication that the leaders and police have it under control
• Stating the economic, financial and social hardship the movement is causing
• No reference to umbrellas
• Advising people to stay away from the sites because of the chaos and violence, esp. tourists and those with small children.
• Blaming foreigners for their interference.

In reality,
• Sites have tens of thousands every day, swelling to 100,000 – 200,000 at certain times. There are many scenes denouncing the CE and the central govt.
• The protestors have very many key articulated voices – and many HK people thought so esp. after the televised dialogue
• HK people have the right to assembly. OCLP actually did submit an application to assemble with the police, but it was denied.
• The soundbites are for Mainland Chinese public consumption to bolster trust in the government and law enforcement
• The police and HK govt obviously do not have the situation “under control”. They are the ones which flare up the uprisings and turn a blind eye to violent agitators.
• The stock market is up for the past month, tourist numbers are up over a year ago. If there is economic hardship, it obviously is not being felt by everyone.
• The umbrella has emerged as a main symbol of the movement; it is not even shown on the mainland.
• The areas are exceedingly peaceful, tidy and seemingly well-organized self-governing communities. The only violence I have seen recorded came from the police or from non-protestors (although admittedly, occasionally some protestors have tried to taunt the police when they show up in force and riot gear). I have been to the sites a dozen times, and I think there is no problem bringing young kids there. Many mainland visitors are actually attracted the sites which have become tourist attractions. Mainlanders never get to see civil disobedience in practice, so it is interesting to them to see it in person.
• No protestor has ever admitted to any foreign support or interference. None of the ones I know who have been more active about it is aware of it. Even if there is some foreign support, it is not what is driving the protests.

Blaming foreigners for their domestic problems is common in Mainland China and it does serve a purpose. Mainland Chinese are taught from childhood that foreigners have been trying to divvy up China between themselves for centuries, and only a strong united China can fight off this foreign threat. It serves as a tool to build nationalism. So no matter how ridiculous this whole thing about blaming foreigners is, it does have some teeth at home and helps to keep China intact.

But US’s use of Manifest Destiny, American Exceptionalism and perpetual war machine to build nationalism looks as ridiculous to me actually. There is also the threat of Yellow Peril just below the surface.

It should be obvious where the violence is coming and who is egging on whom.

Scenes like this would never be available in Mainland China.

I personally know one of the security guards who works in the HSBC building on the corner. He sent me some photos.

About 12 hours later in the daytime, the areas torn down by the poilce were recovered by protestors, as maybe 10,000 more showed up after the violent early morning scuffle. The protestors then outnumbered the police by about 10 to 1. The more violence the police inflict, the more they cause the magnitude of the protests to escalate.

Mongkok was not even the original protest site. It spread here after they used tear gas on the ones in Central.

How would you compare this to scenes in Ferguson?

The Mongkok site is only about 1/10th the size of the one in Central. But violence like this has been erupting more often in Mongkok. I was in Mongkok last night. it is eery to see several dozen police vans parked on the street.

Thank you for the continued information. I have been going black in regards to media outlets these days. The select release of information and new is bothersome. I will try to comment in regards to comparisons once I am able to catch up.

When Xi tells Obama to stop meddling in China’s domestic affairs, how do you feel about Obama replying, “OK, let’s look at where the US is meddling in this, and we can address and fix them one by one”. China accuses other countries, esp. the West of meddling in its “internal affairs”. OK, why don’t we bring HK to the forefront of the table and let China specifically state what they want the US to stop doing!

Another violent scuffle occurred last night. This time it did not involve the pro-democracy protestors.

A blue-ribbon rally was organized last night in Tsim Sha Tsui, a tourist / shopping area at the tip of the Kowloon Peninsula. Its theme was to support the police in their efforts to clear the streets. However, several groups of local reporters were identified and then attacked by rally attendees. Police were present, but they failed to protect the reporters or arrest any of the assailants. Reporters set up their own chains to protect one of the female reporters that was being beaten while the police stood there and watched. Four reporters were sent to the hospital.

Now, the press is not happy about this.

Currently there is a signature campaign being carried out by anti-occupy sympathisers in support of the police. But the incident last night may cause the press to be less engaged to join that support.

HK has always had good support for their police. It seems that that support is eroding.

The Economist is still following the story but Time magazine has had nothing on it for at least two weeks. This week Time has an eight-page article on Ebola, which is in keeping with the present US media freak-out on that story. Like it’s the Blob From Outer Space or something.

Interesting how your comment on Mainland coverage overlapped with the disinformation campaign on the Michael Brown case in the Ferguson thread.

The Economist only comes out once a week, and their news is already well past tense by time it comes out (although it may be good to analyze the background of why something might happen). I did notice the BBC still seems to be covering it sometimes; CNN has an article about once every 3 days. It looks like wikipedia is a lot more update than any of the other ones. For example, Wikipedia posted this yesterday:

“On the morning of 25 Oct Xinhua News Agency posted an article about HK’s wealthiest tycoons such as Li Ka-shing and Lee Shau-kee’s response to the protest, and how they don’t seem to express any opposition to Occupy central.[228] The morning article then disappeared. By night time the article was replaced. This time the tycoons were very much against the protest, saying it was causing social disorder and other harmful problems to society.”

No news of any opinion of the big tycoons has come out in the last couple days, so I have no idea where Xin Hua got its story. Yes, we did see a couple of them come out about 2-3 weeks ago with a couple soundbites recounting the potential harmful effects of the protests, but none since. Maybe it i because the stock market is actually UP.

It is indeed interesting to watch how they report news in China – how they “scrub” the story. It might be good to have a post some day on the Xin Hua News Agency – China’s counterpart to the Associated Press and Reuters.

Why is it that it has dropped off the radar in US media? You would think that the USA would get alarmed that China is cozying up to Russia and telling THEM that foreigners (the West) is supporting and spurring on the protests to break China up. You would think a cold war fear fits right into the American psyche. I suspect the US government is doing something behind the scenes, but they do not want the American people to talk about it lest China provoke them again about the West’s interference.

Some of my friends went to Taiwan this past weekend. I will have to ask them how their conversations went there.

Regarding the disinformation campaign about Ferguson, one big diference here is that the occupy sites are in key sections of Hong Kong. It would be like occupying all of downtown Manhattan (Wall Street to Battery Park to City Hall) and all of Times Square too. Millions of people, both locals and tourists, walk by the areas and is hard for the local media to make stuff up. But 99.9% of Mainland Chinese have no chance to go to HK or access foreign media.

What I suspect – China’s economic might can indeed impose severe penalties on the West for reporting the news.

So what happens?

– Kenny G is forced to retract his twitter posting and other statements that suggests he supports the protestors (or have all his concerts in China yanked).
– media blackout in the USA about Hong Kong

How can people actually learn about what is happening around the world then? IS the US government afraid that if they DID report on it, then NGOs would start sending support and create a diplomatic rift?

I would like to see Obama ask Xi Jinping why China says the West is behind the movement. Give concrete evidence. and then address each of those concerns one by one.

But I suspect it does not work that way. If the USA brings it up, then China puts sanctions —- on the USA. Kenny G is just an example of how it works.

The China leadership is weak because there is an uprising just waiting beneath the surface which could threaten their authority. The West is weak, well, because they are simply broke.

For the story to get more US coverage you would either need a horrifying body count or for US politicians to make a big deal about it, particularly the president or the State Department. The US media has little interest of its own in the outside world.

It’s interesting to see how China’s censors have shifted their tactics from blocking news about the Hong Kong protests to waging a carefully orchestrated propaganda war to smear the movement.

I watched the Mainland chinese news broadcast today (available in HK) about the protest. They are indeed orchestrating a smear campaign. The only video bite they showed was how protestors surrounded a man holding a Mainland Chinese flag (although there was no scene of violence erupting). They brand the protestors as being unpatriotic and everything is illegal, illegal, illegal, ILLEGAL.

And this

“Last weekend, several journalists from RTHK and TVB were assaulted by anti-Occupy radicals while reporting a pro-government assembly in Tsim Sha Tsui. Mainland media used headlines such as “reporters hurt in Occupy rally”.”

That rally was not an Occupy rally, but a counter protest blue ribbon rally, ie, an anti-Occupy rally not an Occupy rally. It is amazing how they try to portray the protestors as violent when the violence is coming almost entirely from the police, anti-Occupy protestors or mafia thugs.

There seems to be a great deal of similarities between the Mike brown protests and these. The smear tactic particularly. Trying to paint the protestors as violence.

‘What do you think about Obama putting the issue of Hong Kong at the top of his next meeting agenda with Xi Jin Ping?”—-My first thought is why is he doing this. He refuses to address protsets and other issues here so why is he reaching overseas to deal with what is going on there. He should ask China what they want and let them lead, but I wonder if it will be in the best inTeresa of the people as a whole. Your thoughts?

It might be interesting to note how the government manages civil disobedience (both in USA and China).

– make the disturbance appear small
– highlight the violence of the protestors, not anti-protestors or the police
– search for evidence to discredit the basis of the protest
– vilify and arrest protestors
– (possibly) send in militarized forces

The aim is to control the spread of civil disobedience. The initial measures deployed in HK backfired, causing the protest sites to spread to other areas.

Notes:
– Hong Kong has not experienced hard handed riot control measures since 1967, prior to the collective memory of most residents. That is why they were shocked to face stuff like massive use of pepper spray, batons, tear gas, with threats of rubber bullets. (USA has a long history of that). HK did use tear gas in 2005 against South Korean demonstrators during the WTO conference.
– A historic trust and reverence for the police had been developed in HK, esp. since they formulated the ICAC (Independent Commission Against Corruption) over 20 years ago. That trust has been shattered.
The USA has had a long split in the population of those who trust the police and those that don’t.
– Even the president is tight-lipped about it. In the USA, Obama refused to deal with it, sending in Eric Holder, who resigned. There is no concerted executive action to deal with the root cause of the problem.

The 1989 Tiananmen Incident will make it nearly impossible to use militarized forces to disperse (ie, crush) the protests. Also, its use in HK will completely dispel the “one country, two systems” mantra used by the central government. At the present, they are still focusing on the use of propaganda and waiting the protestors out until they lose energy.

2 days ago, James Tien, a legislator belonging to the pro-business and pro-Beijing Liberal Party, was expelled as member of China’s top political advisory body, the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), after he urged Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying to step down last week, as he could no longer govern. Over 95% of the committee voted him out.

He also resigned as leader of the Liberal party, but keeps his seat in the Legislative Council.

The CCP does not take kindly to people suggesting that their anointed ones can no longer govern. At least we now know that being a member of a pro-Beijing party is not enough. You must in all cases tow the official party line.

It also means that any Beijing loyalist is not allowed to express any opinion that differs or conflicts with the official party position. Break the rule and you are out.

This also explains why most of the main HK business tycoons have remained eerily silent about Occupy Central. They now must walk the tightrope between appeasing the masters in Beijing without offending their customers.

AND, as it turns out, this Occupy Central movement has made Beijing want to know once and for all, who are their followers and who they can count on. The tycoons and also would be future chief executives are under intense scrutiny and pressure.

Maybe it is a blessing in disguise for James Tien. He can now voice opinions without worrying about getting sacked again.

It is so disingenuous that an HSBC senior executive and member of HK govt’s Executive council (which cannot yet be elected) to liken the democracy movement in HK to the fight for suffrage for black slaves, explaining why it could take a hundred years to achieve that.

The government has hardened its position and cancelled future dialogue with the protestors unless “new” to discuss. The HKFS also has no plans to schedule further talks with the HK government at this time.

There is expected to be a major clean-up by the police on Wednesday or Thursday to enforce the High Court injunction to vacate the streets. This is planned to occur after the conclusion of the APEC meeting in Beijing (allegedly so as not to divert attention from that event).

Prior attempts to clear the streets resulted in a show of mass support by additional protestors to maintain or expand the occupation. It is difficult to speculate about the outcome this time. It is believed that Mongkok may vacate but regroup afterwards, but most protestors seem to have no intention to leave from Admiralty (near Central).

Meanwhile, a police officer was forced to resign after it was discovered that she had posted photos on Facebook and instagram indicating support for the Umbrella movement (eg, Wearing yellow ribbons). She was forced to quit for alleged violation of police regulations prohibiting political activities.

However, police have been displaying blue ribbons for weeks with no consequences. That seems to indicate that there is a double standard regarding when the expression of political opinions is pemitted and when it is not.

China still punishes those entertainment celebrities known for supporting the occupy movement, not just Kenny G. Veteran Hong Kong actor Anthony Wong Chau-sang, who supports the umbrella movement, had his face removed from a poster for his new film Gangster Pay day (潛在風雲) (although he is the lead actor). The film has been acclaimed by critics and audiences outside Mainland China, but has performed miserably there, where his political stance has received extensive online criticism. Is this what is meant by “soft power”?

I think that one issue is that there is no designated leader of the protest movement. I think all sides laid low during the APEC summit although the occupied areas are still occupied.

The plan now is to force the obstructions in the occupied areas to be cleared, probably on Friday. 7,000 police are waiting to be deployed. Last time they only sent about 1,000 officers and the protestors easily overwhelmed them.

The HK govt has rejected further dialogue. No HK official has offered to be broker a meeting with the any party official in Beijing, eg, Mr. Li Keqiang. HKFS seems to have postponed their decision to go to Beijing (and they might not even be allowed to cross the border) pending reformulating their strategies.

The organizers of OCLP have expressed that they are willing to submit themselves to arrest. However, HKFS and Scholarism seem resolute to continue occupation until they are forcibly arrested. Some occupiers are resolute that they will occupy until 2015 if necessary.

Have you watched the APEC press conferences between Xi and Obama? The subject of HK was brought up. Xi, who has been largely silent for the past 6 weeks, reiterated 2 points:
– the occupation is illegal
– China condemns foreign interference

Obama reiterated 2 main points:
– the USA has not interfered in any manner with the HK protests
– the USA desires that the situation is resolved in a non-violent manner, and the election process for Hong Kong will be transparent and fair and reflect the wishes of the HK people.

I have not watched APEC press conference. Perhaps I will be able to find it on YouTube or someplace where I can catch up.

I was actually under the impression that there was a designated leader. That was my mistake. A leader would be greatly beneficial, but dangerous for the person who takes it on. I can understand if one was hesitant in doing that.

If you have time to find online, please find Xi Jinping’s very pointed retort to the NY Times reporters questions about foreign reporters being arrested or denied visas in China. FYI, NY times website is BANNED in China. The whole interchange makes it look like, between China and the USA, China is calling the shots (the USA is taking a conciliatory stance in relation to China’s more hard core stance).

The HK protests grew rather organically without a single leader. Therefore there is not often a consensus about what is wanted and definitely not a consensus regarding tactics.

Anti-occupy counter protest groups are much more simple and unified in their goals (eg, clear the streets, support the police) and for supporting the status quo of accepting whatever Beijing says.

But one can see all the telltale signs of leadership in the PRC exhibiting firm control. For example, any entertainer / celebrity showing sympathy for the umbrella movement will get his publicity removed in China, his concerts or tours in China cancelled or his entry refused. Manufactures of Umbrella movement t-shirts in the Mainland have been forced to stop production. HK is dependent on China enough so that China can clamp down on any and all of this – not just their internet fire wall.

The protestors found a T-shirt maker in HK willing to print the T-shirts. Who knows, maybe China will try to hack their suppliers and force that company out of business. This stuff freaks me out.

What I think will happen is — this will peeter out, but it will build up again. It has been going on for over 15 years already. And now we have a generation which markedly distrusts the police and Beijing. I am wondering if they (the govt) have sowed the seeds of an even larger event for which they will not hesitate in deploying the PLA.

I suggest that you go to the New York Times and see what they wrote, given that they were the only US newspaper that was allowed to ask Xi Jinping a direct question (specifically chosen by the White House to do so).

There are now 2200 tents set up there for peope to sleep overnight in Central alone (more in Mongkok and Causeway Bay). On weekend nights, tens of thousands have been joining. Even if they all submit to voluntary arrest, where will they put all those people and all that stuff. It would be equivalent to bulldozing an entire neighborhood.

They can’t consider anything like turning off the water or the power or cutting off municipal services as, well, they have been living without that for 7 weeks already. Unlike New York, HK does not get as cold in the winter. It does sometimes drop down to the 40s (F) in the middle of winter, but that is not too cold to sleep outside bundled up. Most people in HK do not have heating anyhow.

It would be a job to remove the thousands of people who have set up camp on the streets. The tents spread from the government headquarters in Central / Admiralty, all the way to Stock Exchange Centre in Central and the other direction to the police headquarters in Wanchai.

Also noted

In addition, a “study center” has sprung up at the admiralty protest site. It features a small library, charging stations for activists and journalists and Wi-Fi. The area also serves as a convenient place for demonstrators to socialize.

I know this maybe out of the blue but after reading some of these articles and getting a tone of aggressiveness from Xi; I have to wonder if he or those in his party are willing to kill citizens in order to stop protests?

On top of that the Times was pretty bold in their statements as well. Makes me wonder how far they are willing to go to get a story.

“Could you imagine such a thing setting up at a USA protest site?”—–This may sound very weird, but I actual found it beautiful and a bit refreshing. Like live artwork.

As to me imagining that happening in the USA, I have to say no. Even with divided fronts, people in America can not come together on anything. Too much dislike and distrust of each other to even proceed. That is why it amazes me that with no clear leader and probably different demands and views, they are able to atleast come together and hold strong through all of that. I admire that type of determination. I wish we could here and we would likely see a level of change among the people that could mold our government.

Finally, an outbreak of violence from a small number of protestors this morning in Central.

About a dozen young men took metal barricades and rammed them into the glass doors of the Legislative Council building. The aim was to delay the tabling (deliberation) of a bill to restrict online freedom of speech.

They broke the window panes of the entrance and tiles on the walls. Most of the peaceful demonstrators condemned this activity, including pan-democratic legislators.

While the US media is abuzz with immigration reform, yesterday the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission issued their annual report to Congress.

This comes immediately after the last British Governor of Hong Kong, Chris Patten, made an impassioned plea to this US Congressional commission panel that China has reneged on its agreement with the UK. and China’s allegations that foreigners are behind the movement is nonsense and a “slur” on a “wonderfully principled” movement. In the prior week, he stood in front of British Parliament, accusing Britain of failing to exert enough pressure on China to stick to the provisions of the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration on the handover of Hong Kong’s sovereignty because it was worried about damaging trade ties. He reminded them that it is the Sino-British Joint Declaration and not the China declaration, and it was a treaty between China and the UK regarding how Hong Kong would be governed for 50 years after the 1997 handover. UK has the obligation to require China to enforce the treaty, and it would not constitute an interference in domestic affairs (beyond what is permitted in the treaty).

Commission co-chairman Senator Sherrod Brown said Hong Kong was a test of China’s willingness to comply with its international commitments – ““If China can so easily renege on its promises to Hong Kong, then how can we expect China to hold up its end of the bargain on issues like World Trade Organization compliance or future trade agreements?”

▶
China’s central government has put forth a framework for
the election of Hong Kong’s next chief executive in 2017 that
effectively excludes democratic candidates from nomination and
allows Beijing to control the outcome. This proposal conflicts with
standards set forth in Hong Kong’s Basic Law (my bolding) and the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, and runs counter to
international commitments made by China in the 1984 Sino-
UK Joint Declaration to preserve Hong Kong’s “high degree of
autonomy” and way of life for 50 years following its 1997 handover
from the United Kingdom.
▶
Increased Chinese military activity in Hong Kong signals China’s
determined presence there and serves to intimidate pro-democracy
activists from participating in the Occupy Central movement and
other peaceful movements out of fear of military retaliation.
▶
Increased infringement on Hong Kong’s press freedom, particularly
in the forms of violence against journalists and political pressure on
advertisers, threatens the media’s ability to serve as a watchdog.
The steady erosion of press freedom is a worrying trend that has
worsened over the last ten years, and appears to be targeted at
outspoken pro-democracy media.

In it the Commission recommends:

44. Congress adopt a resolution urging China to keep its commit-
ments to allow broadly representative nomination and election
of Hong Kong’s chief executive by universal suffrage in accord-
ance with democratic procedures as articulated in the 1984
Sino-British Joint Declaration on the Question of Hong Kong,
the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Re-
gion, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights.

45. Members of Congress, when visiting mainland China, also visit
Hong Kong to engage with high-level administrators on such
issues as democratic election.

46. Members of Congress, jointly with members of British Par-
liament, promote Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy in ac-
cordance with the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic
Law.

This has INFURIATED Beijing. They have condemned #47 for the past 20 years, but the other items have sent Beijing back to its broken record argument:
China’s Foreign Ministry on Thursday reiterated that foreign countries should not “interfere” with Hong Kong’s (or any part of China’s) internal affairs.

A resolution is expected to be tabled (ie, introduced) in Congress next week.

This comes just one week after the US and China have agreed to so many items, including control of greenhouse gas emissions and visa relaxations.

China threatened Kenny G with cancelling his concert tour and promotion in China and he retracted any evidence of support for the democracy protests. China has blocked promotion of concerts, films, etc. of HK entertainers who have publicly supported the protests. They blocked entry into mainland China all HK residents on their blacklist for fomenting the protests. They already sent hundreds of riot police to the border of Shenzhen in case groups of students decide to test the blacklist by trying to cross the border.

What would they do to the US government if such a resolution passes the Congress floor? Blacklist the entire USA?

On Tues, up to 1000 police descended on the Kowloon to clear the site of protestors and barricades. There were purportedly assisting bailiffs in a court order raised in a suit by private parties (eg, the taxi drivers association) to clear the site. About 120 were arrested in the day time.

Only thing, the bailiffs showed up early on tuesday, but let the police take over. They then used hard-handed tactics and went ahead to apprehend, even attack protestors (and others suspected of being a protestor) outside of the areas designated by the court order. They did not explain the court order to anyone, just cleared the area.

Protestors were pushed into other areas in MK, but police also cleared them out too.

Justice Secretary Rimsky Yuen made a public statement that the police had the authority to apprehend anyone even outside of the area designated by the court order. But later in Legco, when Yuen was questioned re: if police always had the authority to clear the streets, why did they have to wait for the court order to clear the sites. They could have done it back in October. He responded that they wanted to avoid violence and bloodshed.

Oh really.

Anyhow, HKFS vice-Chairman Lester Shum and Scholarism covenor Joshua Wong were taken into custody on Tue.

And some legislators have demanded an investigation that police have not been exercising the court order in good faith.

2. Things turned ugly in Mongkok for the past 2 nights

After work, thousands of protestors showed up in the area, but police also came out in force, swelling to 6000 (the entire HK police force is approx 28000, so almost 1/4 of the entire force). Protestor numbers seeking to reclaim protest sites also appeared in the thousands. Police started beating people and removing them, even non-protestors. They spayed tear spray into the crowd.

A local news reporter cameraman was accused of attacked a policeman with his ladder and was grabbed, beaten, pinned to the ground and apprehended and taken into custody. That news station has been very vocal about the excessive force used by police. Beating and kicking of police towards both protestors and non-protestors has been recorded. Some have even hurled racist remarks to those that did not appear to be Chinese (ie, Hongkongers of South Asian descent).

Last night, more people came out. They shouted they wanted to go the supermarket, to watch a movie, to go shopping AND universal suffrage. They were greeted with police beatings and arrests. Here is a youtube:

It took 6000 officers to “control” (if that is what you call it) Mongkok last night and it is not over. Thousands of people will probably show up every night, and even if they arrest hundreds every day, it might not stop it. The govt are determined to make sure that no occupation of Mongkok recurs, so let’s see how far they will go. Some protestors started setting up barricades in Tsim Sha Tsui, another district (tourist district) in Kowloon. Police did manage to stop it before they succeeded in blocking the roads.

Those arrested who have had a hearing have been ordered not to go to the Mongkok district again.

The areas occupied by protestors between Central and Wanchai on HK island takes up about 10 times the space and people and items. They are planning to clear that at some point. It seems that even if half the entire police force comes out, they will have problems.

Tear gas brought out up to 200,000 people 2 months ago. What is at their disposal now? The government does not appear willing to seek a political solution, but has been resorting to force.

HK has no “national guard”. That is the PLA (People’s LIberation Army). 6000 police could not quell Mongkok, and that is only about 1/10 the area. What would 6000 PLA do?

Mongkok is HK’s most densely populated commercial district, with thousands of businesses, and hundreds of thousands of tourists, workers and shoppers. Clearing the streets with force would mean that tens of thousands of people would be affected. The fact that non-protestors are also getting beaten and arrested attest to this.

3. Students have been testing the mainland China blacklist

A few days ago, a group of 20 students tried to cross the border into Mainland china. Only 3 of them were allowed through. Hundreds of mainland Chinese riot police have been deployed on the border in case.
The student groups are keeping records of who is being let in, who isn’t, and recording the school and police records of the students for their database. They are planning to send in scores of students daily to test that blacklist. It is hard to say what they will do with this information.

Richard Graham, Tory Party British MP who was formerly a diplomat to Beijing and former British consul to Macau when it was a Portuguese territory was refused a visa to visit China. He was part of the an 11 member delegation to the UK-China Leadership Forum scheduled to take place in Shanghai.

On October 22, he made a statement in parliament that Britain had a duty to uphold the principles of the 1984 joint declaration by Britain and China, which led to the return of Hong Kong to China in 1997. In the declaration China agreed to maintain “freedom under the law, an independent judiciary, a free press, free speech and the freedom to demonstrate”.

The Chinese embassy in London instructed him to make a statement clarifying his thinking after he held the debate in Westminster Hall last month. At the 11th hour, due to the visa rejection, the entire delegation cancelled their trip. Several of the MP stated that were understood to feel that the Chinese embassy was interfering in a wholly unacceptable way in the internal affairs of the UK. The trip was part of the UK-China Leadership Forum. Their attitude was described as regretful rather than angry.

(echoing the broken record rhetoric coming out of Beijing that foreigners are intervening in China’s domestic affairs).

This followed on the heels of the US Congressional report on China and recommendations re: Hong Kong issued last week.

As a gesture of “friendship” he invited Korean K-pop bands to come to HK to entertain young people.

Wow.

******

I am sure that China must be having a field day with the US protests, but the increasing police brutality in what used to be orderly HK has not been hidden from the West. Of course, it is being scrubbed clean across the border.

Following the clearance of the Mong Kok thoroughfares, Hong Kong Chief Executive C. Y. Leung urged people to return to the busy commercial precinct to go shopping.

Problem is, police cannot distinguish between shoppers, local residents, tourists, reporters and actual protestors. Mongkok is perhaps the densest shopping district in the world. Police have been beating, apprehending and arresting anyone they think looks suspicious.

China has denied Hong Kong visas to a group of British members of Parliament after the lawmakers signaled they were going to look into the handling of the pro-democracy protests, the chairman of the group said.

Richard Ottaway, the head of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, planned to seek an emergency debate on Hong Kong in Parliament on Monday.

Student leaders stated today that the idea to block the Executive offices today was not successful.

Media reported to have 7000 police deployed to Central (5000) and Mongkok (2000), the most ever to date, fully 25% of the entire territory’s police force in the early morning hours at the current and former protest sites..

Even the China Central TV news reported the escalation in the clashes with the police and even showed video of the protestors. However, there is still a difference between what is shown in China and what is shown on more neutral local cable and esp. on pro-democracy media

In mainland China coverage

* all the protestors are depicted as ruffians and violent (by far, well over 98% are exceedingly peaceful and orderly – the protestors who have tended to engage in more violent confrontation with the police are really a small minority of the protestors)

* a couple people stormed a stage at “Umbrella Square” (site of the Central Occupation) and tried to pull a speaker down off the stage while tearing the stage apart.
– Mainland China news said a couple of protestors tried to tear down the stage at the protest site – that there are splits within the protestors and they are inciting violence among themselves
– More neutral coverage did not classify them as protestors, just saying that a couple people entered the protest site and tried to tear down a stage
– Anti-government media sources tend to blame most of the violence at the sites on hired thugs, hired by mainland parties, local police or local pro-Beijing govt officials or other similar interest groups.

Who are we to believe is telling the truth? It is funny to look at different sources and get a different story.

But now I have formed a clearer idea on the difference between breaking the law and failure to follow the rule of law.

Breaking the law does not really damage the rule of law, as long as the mechanism for handling cases and people who break the law are carried out and those parties breaking the law submit to that mechanism.

The rule of law is damaged, however, when the government tries to devise alternate ways to undertake a plan of action by skirting around actually enforcing the law. This, by far, damages the rule of law much more than people who actually break the law.

Damage to the rule of law comes at the hands of parties who are entrusted with enforcing the law, and by following procedures in accordance with the law. Breaking a law does not, in and of itself, damage the rule of law. Therefore, I do not see protestors, who might be breaking the law, to actually damage the rule of law. It is government officials who damage or undermine the rule of law by not properly following the procedures outlined in the law.

Four of the UK’s top newspapers (The Telegraph, The Times, The Guardian and the Daily Mail) are ablaze with the diplomatic row with China over their decision to refuse entry to Hong Kong later this month for the members of Parliament forming the U.K. parliamentary committee on foreign affairs.

They started discussing this trip to Hong Kong back in July as a regular check-up on Britain’s relationship to Hong Kong in accordance with the Sino-British joint declaration of 1984, well before the white paper on Electoral Reform came out and before the democracy protests started. But Beijing insists that it is a ploy for the UK to interfere with China’s domestic affairs.

The UK newspapers said that “Sir Richard Ottaway, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee described the Chinese move as “overtly confrontational” and “frankly ridiculous” and saying that “I think it is a decision they will regret.”

Admittedly, reading the Joint Declaration, it appears that there is a conflict built into it. On the one hand, it says in article 3(2)
“The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will enjoy a high degree of autonomy, except in foreign and defence affairs which are the responsibilities of the Central People’s Government. ”

However, articles 3(9) and 3(10) give the UK a large degree of latitude to engage with Hong Kong directly, while 3(12) guarantees these rights for at least 50 years. In particular, the last sentence of 3(10) says that“The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region may on its own issue travel documents for entry into and exit from Hong Kong. “

Finally, the joint declaration is binding on BOTH the PRC and UK for the 50 years following the return of sovereignty.

In paragraph 8, it says“This Joint Declaration and its Annexes shall be equally binding. “

So the question is, does China’s agreement to govern Hong Kong’s foreign affairs supersede the other provisions of the agreement? I think that that is for both UK and China to decide jointly. If there is a grey area of interpretation in the joint declaration, it does not appear that China should unilaterally decide how it should be handled since it is a two-party agreement. At the very least, it should be the Government of Hong Kong to explain why certain people are denied entry into Hong Kong. Why should Beijing get involved unless there is some some concrete evidence that a visit by a UK parliamentary committee presents an immediate and acute danger to China’s national security. There is no evidence of that.

Since this in an international agreement between two countries and the dispute in its interpretation has escalated into a row that has gained the attention of Prime Minister David Cameron and will be tabled (discussed) in Parliament on Tuesday, will a 3rd party be required to resolve? The UN or the Hague?

It is a two-party agreement. So I don’t see how Britain would overstep the boundaries of the agreement to ensure that China is upholding its side of the agreement. That is why China saying that the UK is interfering in domestic affairs and they have the right to refuse visas to HK follows from its right to govern HK’s foreign affairs is a serious step on the boundaries of the agreement.

But how does that mesh with Britain’s rights and responsibilities in the agreement?

Unless it was trying to undermine its national security. Can China prove that or is it just what they are saying?

Anyhow paragraph 3(11) states

The maintenance of public order in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will be the responsibility of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

So if China sends in the PLA to restore order due to civil unrest, it is expressly violating the agreement. That would not only look bad for China, it would be an expressed violation of an international treaty.

The UK parliament mentioned yesterday that China has broken its agreement with UK over Hong Kong in accordance with the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration.

The UK claim that no other country has refused entry of UK’s parliamentary foreign affairs committee, including to places like Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. However, they express they have particular needs to monitor Hong Kong as Britain signed a treaty with China that does not expire until 2047, and they are obligated to ensure that both sides uphold the agreement.

So far China has simply swatted this off like an annoying fly.

I think this might have impact on the US Congress, which just received their report last week. Some senators have suggested that all treaties with China will have to be reexamined as there is question whether China is committed to honoring their treaties or not.

We have to see where this goes, but now the impact of Hong Kong’s Universal Suffrage movement has spilled over to impact international treaties now.

Given China’s recent cozying up with Russia, does that mean that we might have to consider that we could be heading towards a new Cold War?

The 3 middle-aged founders (Benny Tai, Chan Kin-man and Chu Yiu-ming) of Occupy Central with Love and Peace (OCLP) turned themselves into the Police today. The students did not join them, but some 60-odd others did. They were later released without getting arrested. They urged the students to retreat and start formulating the strategy to the next step, as the general public have begun to turn away from supporting the occupation protest. The government has begun to win the upper hand in the public relations struggle without having to engage the protestors. This has been fueled by some violent acts performed in the past week or two. Some believe the government may have even been behind that.

Joshua Wong of Scholarism started a hunger strike since Tue am. 2 others joined him.HKFS did not join. Joshua Wong said he will do it until there is a dialogue with the HK government. Meanwhile he has climbed to the 3rd spot in Time Magazine’s Person of the Year.

HKFS members have not turned themselves into the police, preferring to await arrest.

There are plans for the police to clear out the main protest site next week per a Court Order raised by a private bus company.

The last British governor of Hong Kong, Chris Patten got written promises that full democracy would be implemented. In 1993, their representative in Hong Kong, Lu Ping, made a statement: “How Hong Kong develops democracy in the future is a matter entirely within the sphere of Hong Kong’s autonomy, and the central government cannot intervene.” (People’s Daily, March 18, 1993.)

A year later, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Beijing made a similar statement. The democratic election of all Legislative Council members by universal suffrage “is a question to be decided by the Hong Kong SAR (Special Administrative Region) itself and it needs no guarantee by the Chinese Government.”

Over 10,000 regathered in in Central (Admiralty) for the last night prior to the major clearing by the bailiffs and police in Hong Kong.

Now, the major artery, Harcourt Road, is reopen to traffic after 75-76 days of occupation. A couple dozen pro-democracy legislators submitted themselves to arrest during the clearing operation, as well as billionaire media mogul Jimmy Lai. In total, a few hundred were arrested. The tents and aid stations occupying the road were removed.

7000 police officers with hundreds of bailiffs were deployed, but unlike the clearing in Mongkok nearly two weeks ago, there was no significant use of pepper or tear spray or beating of protestors with batons. yet despite the lack of violent resistance, the clearing took considerably longer than anticipated.

There is still some occupation in the periphery of the occupy site and around the Legislative Council offices, as well as in the Causeway Bay Shopping district.

I figured it was possible, but very shocked that someone actually took the time out and caught them. I think a post on cops infiltrating peaceful protests is well overdue. With the amount of protests going on it would be perfect timing.

Not at all. All of the CCP mouthpieces (including the current crop of unelected puppet leaders) have taken a very hard line in the aftermath of Occupy Central.

For example, CY Leung, in his annual policy speech 2 weeks ago intended to outline his policy plans for the following year, took the opportunity to make a scathing attack on a (previously obscure) book published in 2013 by the Hong Kong University press that discussed the prospects of “self-determination” in Hong Kong. (Recall, that the policy for Hong Kong, at least on paper, is “One Country, Two Systems” with a “High Degree of Autonomy”. ) CY Leung attacked it for fanning the flames for the idea of Hong Kong independence.

This kind of stuff does not belong in an annual policy speech. It is widely believed that the CCP forced him to insert that in his policy address.

Anyhow, this kind of activity has an opposite effect. The book quickly ran out of stock, and a new set was printed which also went out of stock. People who never really thought about it are now reading the book. No one who sympathises with the book’s idea has come forward to suggest that it promoted Hong Kong independence. But it will cause more people to be even more resolute in supporting the cause to maintain autonomy that is not always under Beijing’s thumb.

The People’s Liberation Army helped to organize a youth cadet corps to develop morals and discipline in local youth. It was later revealed that many of the students were tricked into joining. It has also sparked debate about the PLA role in HK – are they overstepping their bounds specified in the law (most legal experts believe so).

The Education sector in both HK and Mainland china has been targettd for reform. In particular, the CCP mouthpieces have spurted out that educational institutions have been teaching a western style liberalism and need to focus more on post-1949 Chinese history. The thing is, over half of the history subjects taught in Hong Kong ALREADY focus on modern Chinese history. The code word is that they want to remove “failures” such as the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, the Tiananmen Square incident, the erosion of autonomy in the “semi-autonomous” regions like Tibet and replace it with a fairy tale success story.

The mainland Education sector has been under particularly heavy attack in the past 2 months. Academics who say anything that is perceived as critical of the party’s stance have been arrested and jailed. The party moutpieces also have sour words for Hong Kong’s premier university, the University of Hong Kong as failing to produce good research in the past year.
That will only cause academics in Hong Kong to take a turn away from the CCP’s policies if they see that it will affect their academic freedom.

Finally, this “Western interference” thing, that both the CCP and CY Leung were claiming throughout 2014 …. Both Beijing and the HK govt leaders suddenly became silent about that. It is believed that those accusations refer to the OCLP (Occupy Central with Love and Peace) and pan-Democrat legislators who had received contributions into accounts as HSBC, a “foreign” bank. This is of course ridiculous.

(FYI: the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation was founded in both Hong Kong and Shanghai in 1865 by the British (in connection with the Opium War). During WWII, its headquarters was moved to London as the Japanese used the bank building to house its troops and the Japanese military government. Its headquarters was moved back to HK after the war and is still in HK. However, HSBC holdings was created in the 1990s and the parent company to HSBC and they are listed on the London Stock Exchange. NOBODY in HK thinks of HSBC as a foreign bank and the idea of pointing to this is nothing short of ridiculous.)

I supposed that if I made a monetary contribution to one of the pan-Democrat parties, I would be one of those foreign forces (as, although I have the right to vote in local elections, I still hold a US passport). In that case, 1 million residents in HK would be part of that “foreign” force.

To add confusion to the matter, the HK govt is now actively promoting the idea for children of HK emigrants to come back to HK in an effort to attract talent. But, do you think the current climate is attractive to them? Aren’t children of HK emigrants who were born, raised and educated overseas not a “foreign force”?

After the CCP invaded Tibet and captured control of Tibet in the 1950s, the CCP also promised Tibetans the right to elect their own leaders and to maintain a high degree of autonomy. Look where we are 60 years later. In the meantime, the CCP has been tightening political controls on Hong Kong and flooding the territory with mainland Chinese money and people. That is not much different from the approach used in Tibet. The mouthpieces say that Tibetans were ungrateful for all the investment that the central government has made there. They are saying similar things about Hong Kong now.

From Common’s and John Legend’s acceptance speech for the song “Glory” from the movie Selma (2014) – (Common’s portion).

Recently, John and I got to go to Selma and perform “Glory” on the same bridge that Dr. King and the people of the civil rights movement marched on 50 years ago. This bridge was once a landmark of a divided nation, but now is a symbol for change. The spirit of this bridge transcends race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and social status. The spirit of this bridge connects the kid from the South side of Chicago, dreaming of a better life to those in France standing up for their freedom of expression to the people in Hong Kongprotesting for democracy. This bridge was built on hope. Welded with compassion. And elevated by love for all human beings.

However, when it panned back to the local Hong Kong emcees afterwards, they acted as if they did not hear that mmm-mm-h Hong Kong was mentioned at the Academy Awards. It was obvious that they avoided showing any sign that they noticed it at all.

It was broadcast here live in the morning, which is 13 hours ahead of EST (16 hours ahead of PST).

I wonder how they handle it when it is rebroadcast in the evening after they add Chinese subtitles. Will they change the script?

The Electoral reform package proposed by the government will be tabled (brought forward at the meeting) at Legco (Legislative Council – HK’s lawmaking body) within the next couple hours. Then they will vote on it.

The government has waged a full out campaign to push this through, but has prohibited any political party or group from making any advertisement of their positions. They coined the phrase “pocket it first” to convince the public to accept the fake democracy proposal now, in the expectation that further reforms could be expected some time in the future. However, Beijing spokespersons have made statements that imply that room for further reforms will not be likely.

Daily public opinion polls indicated that the majority of the public had initially tended to support the government proposal, but after the government campaign, support has been eroded to the point where those opposed equal or outnumber those that support. Also, in addition to the pan-democrat Legco members who have been promising to veto it all along, many legco members from the functional constituencies (eg, Accounting, Law, Medicine) have indicated they will also veto it.

It has become a foregone conclusion that the bill will not pass and the existing electoral process would continue (at least for now). The opponents believe that even though the current method is not democratic at all, at least everyone knows that (and the Chief Executive does not hold the mandate of the people). If the “fake democracy” reform bill is passed, then the central government would be able to tell HK that its leaders DO have the mandate of the people (when they don’t).

In the meantime, security around the Legislative council building has been beefed up today to prepare for anything that might happen. The main concern is if it *does* pass, which many believe would lead to riots.

The USA has its attention to the mass shooting in Charleston, SC, but the vote in Legco (Legislative Council in Hong Kong) for the Beijing backed electoral reform package on Thursday June 18 took a very weird turn during the voting on Thursday.

It was the white paper on electoral reform issued by Beijing’s NPCSC on Aug 31 last year that sparked the Occupy central umbrella movement Sep-Dec 2014

Basically,
– there are 70 Legco members and one president.
– Members consist of Functional constituency representatives (28) representing special interest groups and the rest are elected. Functional constituencies generally are pro-establishment, so even if the rest are anti-establishment (e.g., the pan-democrats), the functional constituencies can veto a bill.
– 2/3 majority are needed to pass a law
– 27 are classified as pan-democrats, from various parties who hold often hold positions that oppositional to the central government (but not necessarily – if they can reach a consensus)
– there are just enough pan-democrats to veto bills, but not enough to pass legislation
– Beijing interests have tried to pick off a few of the moderate pan-democrats to vote to pass the electoral reform. Only 4 were needed assuming that the pro-establishment members and the functional constituencies all supported it.
– in the past few days all pan-democrats, even the moderate ones, vowed to veto the electoral reform package favoured by Beijing.
– in the past few days, a couple of the functional constituencies (eg, medical, accounting sectors, possibly education) indicated a high likelihood that they would veto the bill.

Passage of the electoral reform looked more and more hopeless in the past week.

69 of the 70 legislators showed up. One had been ill, but indicated that he would try to attend.
After presentations and deliberations, the president asked if everyone was done, and if they could proceed to voting. It was announced that the voting process had begun.
Then, suddenly, one of the pro-establishment legislators (Jeffrey Lam of the commercial sector functional constituency) announced that the legislator that was absent was on his way, and if they could call a 15 mins. recess to wait for him. The president said NO, as voting had already started.
THEN, 33 legislators stood up and left the room. The idea was that if there were not enough present, there would not be a quorum. If at least half the members were present , then there would be a quorum. Sidenote: Jeffrey Lam got his B.S. degree from the same university in Massachusetts that I did – the same alma mater 😛

Well, it looks like some of the pro-establishment legislators did not get the memo and 9 of them remained in their seats, leaving 36 legislators plus the president (total 37). BINGO, enough for a quorum. The voting process continued.

All 27 pan-democrats voted to veto the package, as well as the representative from the Medical constituency. The other 8 voted to pass. So the result was 8 YES, and 28 NO. So among the legislators present, they overwhelmingly voted not to pass the package.

This flies in the face of all the Beijing mouthpieces saying that most HK people supported the package when the overwhelming majority (78%) in Legco voted against it. It will also call into question if the key legislators in HK are as loyal to Beijing as the central government had counted on.

It also questions whether those 33 who walked out really support the package. By not voting, it means that they do not need to reveal how they personally feel about it.

This means that the next Chief executive will be chosen by the prior method (a group of 1200, mostly Beijing loyalists) and leaves democratic reform in an indefinite state of limbo, as Beijing has vowed not to waiver from their 31 Aug 2014 white paper. The HK government will want to switch focus to “livelihood issues” (eg, housing and old age financial support), but I really doubt that the pro-democracy forces will let electoral reform be swept under the rug.

We are only a few days away from the one year anniversary of Occupy Central. CY Leung is still the Chief Executive and we are no closer to democratic elections than we were a year ago. And Beijing mouthpieces have been particularly harsh towards the universities, esp. the University of Hong Kong.

The actual one-year anniversary date will fall on a public holiday this year (mid-Autumn festival), and a silent protest is scheduled at the exact time that the tear gas was deployed last year.

Almost daily in Hong Kong now, we see and hear how the concepts of the rule of law and freedom of speech being subjugated to the concept of being patriotic, or in the interests of the country (ie, the CCP).

Some things that have occurred since the one year anniversary of Occupy Central (ie, in the past few weeks):

1. Increasing domination of the universities by pro-Beijing forces

Universities have been an area of severe concern and in some cases, under attack. The University of Hong Kong (HKU) has been particularly targeted. The appointment of pro vice-chancellor Johannes Chan was delayed for almost a year due to disfavour in Beijing. Finally he was rejected by the HKU council in a closed door meeting. Leaked information from that meeting indicated that his rejection was based on trivial or irrelevant reasons.

Since then, the Chief Executive CY Leung and appointed a series of pro-Beijing committee members to the 8 local university councils, in an effort to have them eventually adopt policies in line with the CCP. There is a movement to remove the chief executive’s role as chancellor to local universities, which heretofore had been mostly an honourary / ceremonial title with powers that prior chief executives (or governors during the British colonial period) never invoked.

A movement of academics has organized in an attempt to remove the chief executive from this role in an effort to protect academic freedom.

2. Certain former dignitaries seem to have been blacklisted.

The most prominent is billionaire global mogul Li Ka-shing, who was one of the most revered role models on the mainland, and has now been ridiculed by Beijing mouthpieces as being unpatriotic to the motherland for moving his assets out of Hong Kong and China and relocating his business headquarters overseas. He and his family still retain their Canadian passports.

He is now reviled in most of the pro-Beijing newspapers as being selfish and concerned only with profits. This is despite his running of a charity (The Li Ka-shing foundation) which has pledged to channel 1/3 of his profits (around US$9 billion) to programs primarily to benefit China. This forced his flagship companies to release statements in rebuttal to these criticisms.

But we know that the main reason he moved his companies’ assets and headquarters out of China and HK was due to the erosion of the rule of law.

Seven police officers were caught on amateur video last year for seizing Ken Tsang to a corner and kicking and beating him. A whole year (since October 15) had gone by before any charges were brought. Charges against Ken Tsang had been dropped months ago and the police officers concerned had been suspended.

However, the Justice department had been dragging their feet saying that they had to get overseas advice on how to handle this, despite the fact that the identities of the officers were clearly known and what they had done had been unquestionably recorded.

Then, exactly one year after the incident, charges were filed on both the police officers and on Ken Tsang himself (new charges of assault unrelated to the original alleged charges last year). The public is skeptical that the fact that both were charged and exactly on the one year anniversary of the event that the Government is trying to, on the one had set an example of this case and on the other, steer the attention away from the malfeasance of the officers.

Here is a summary of the situation together with a video recording of the police beating.

This has been going on for almost 2 years now. Basically, it seems that Beijing would like to reassign judges to be a category of civil servant, ie, answerable to the government. The effort seems to be trying to dismantle the independence of the judicial system. They have also circulated talk that the chief executive’s powers transcend those of the 3 branches of government.

–> The Basic law has been reinterpreted to mean something other than originally intended.

The Queen made reference to the visionary concept of Deng Xiao Ping’s “One Country, Two Systems”, perhaps an indirect reminder about the commitment to maintain such an arrangement for 50 years.

However, I also feel that Britain has dropped the ball in its commitment to maintain its role and responsibilities emanating from the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration, or at least sidelined it in the wake of trade deals.

Joshua Wong faces trial next week for his role in the Umbrella Movement protests, and at the same time, he has petitioned the courts to lower the age at which citizens may run for district councilor. At age 19, he is already keen to enter electoral politics.

I notice that the story has become headlines in some of the western press that a 5th bookseller / publisher in HK who engages in selling books banned in Mainland China has disappeared, allegedly abducted and taken to China.

Mr. Lee Bo left his passport and China travel card (entry card to mainland china used by many HK residents) were left at home. He is reported to be in Mainland China now. There is no way that anyone can enter Mainland China without a passport or a travel card, unless it was done by the government. However, that means that a Mainland government official exercised its authority in Hong Kong which is a clear and direct violation of the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration.

Oh, by the way, did I mention that Mr. Lee Bo is a UK citizen? The one abducted prior to him is a Swedish national who is a HK permanent resident.

We saw the UK (ie, prime minister David Cameron) kowtow to China during Xi’s visit late last year.

When a UK parliamentary committee was denied entrance to HK during the 2014 Umbrella protest, the UK government did not press China about THAT violation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration.

One of the 5 missing people was abducted in Thailand.

This is by far the most disturbing event to occur since the Umbrella Movement.

The disappearance of Lee Bo, co-owner of a Causeway Bay publishing house and bookstore that sells titles critical of China’s top leadership, offers the best opportunity to test the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration that provides for the implementation of the “one country, two systems” policy in Hong Kong.

Britain has confirmed that Lee is a British citizen, and that it is deeply concerned over his disappearance and that of four of his associates in the publishing house.

If it is true that he had been abducted in Hong Kong and taken across the border by mainland authorities, it would be a violation of the joint declaration signed by China and Britain.

I know everyone is the USA is focusing on the Oregon Standoff by armed white terrorists and the El Chapo incident, but I would like to mention something very disturbing.

Here is a call to the international community to take notice of the white terror in Hong Kong. Indeed, the most disturbing event since the Tian An Men 1989 Massacre has hit here.

The owners and employees of a HK bookseller and publishing house have been abducted to Mainland China over the period of a few months for printing and selling sensitive books and magazine, including salacious tabloids about the Mainland and its senior officials, which is legal in HK, but banned in Mainland China. It means that mainland Chinese authorities have entered Hong Kong (and overseas) to abduct people for alleged offenses to Mainland Chinese laws but who are not bound by those laws when they are not in Mainland China. One of the abductees is a Chinese born Swedish National who was vacationing in Thailand. The most recent one is a HK born UK national who was removed from HK without his travel documents and no record of his departure. This is by far the most egregious breach of the “One Country, Two Systems” arrangement in Hong Kong, even more so that the 2014 Umbrella Protests. It is the most serious threat to Free Speech and separate judicial system that the region / territory has ever faced.

My opinion:
The UK has really dropped the ball on this. It looks like an uncontestable breach of the 1984 Sino-British joint declaration. David Cameron has remained silent. If they say anything at all, China will say that this is an internal domestic affair and none of THEIR business. At least the Foreign Affairs Secretary is pushing for information.

One of my suggested options to the UK?

Open the right to land in the UK with an unconditional right to stay in Britain to all HK residents who hold or are eligible to hold a BNO (British National Overseas) passport (estimated eligible persons = 3.4 million, or just under half the population). This would not violate any agreement that Britain has with China and China would be groundless to object to it due to interference with domestic Chinese affairs, as that would be a domestic UK immigration policy issue, not a Chinese one.

If they settle in the UK, then after a period of time, they could then apply to become a full UK citizen.

About the only thing that China could do is kick out the UK consulate in HK. Then the UK could open a desk in Taiwan to process this, something that presidential candidate Tsai Ying-wen would accept.

I really do not think that many eligible HK residents would actually take up the offer, but there should be some way to react without China accusing the UK of not recognizing China’s sovereignty.

1. Mongkok street protest on Chinese New Year (February)
The biggest street protest was on Chinese new Year’s day, when the government tried to crackdown on unlicensed hawkers and some protestors responded by throwing objects, street barricades, bricks, etc, even setting fires. More police officers got injured than protestors or passers-by. One of the protestors, a 24-yr old from a “localism” group (see below). Edward Leung Tin-Kei, who ran for a Legislative Council (Legco) seat in a by-election after a moderate pan-democrat resigned last year came 3rd place in the election, suggesting that some localist candidates could garner enough votes to gain Legco seats in the election later this year.

2. No closure to the bookseller abduction saga
Regarding the bookseller abductions mentioned above, the governments of both Hong Kong and Mainland China have tried desperately to downplay it.

However, the EU issued a report that the issue is the most serious challenge to Hong Kong’s One Country, Two Systems setup under the Basic Law. Both China and HK governments told the EU to shut up and stop interfering in HK’s business. This is despite the fact that two of the abducted booksellers are EU nationals and were abducted outside mainland China.

What was a nascent call for more self-determination in HK’s future before the Umbrella Movement has evolved into several groups advocating more autonomy from Beijing, even independence. One of them is Demistoso, a group founded by Joshua Wong (from Scholarism) and Nathan Law (from the HK Federation of Students). Some of the groups will be fielding candidates, including Nathan Law and also Edward Leung Tin Kei mentioned above. Another group formed called the Hong Kong National Party, which is seeking more autonomy for HK after 2047 and is not ruling out calling for independence. The HK govt has rejected their registration as a group although they have not broken any laws. There is no crime for anyone to suggest that citizens have a right to consider independence as an option.
The Crimes Ordinance was written before 1997 and basically says that no one can insult the Queen nor engage hostile forces to attack the UK.

This is an unforeseen development as NO ONE talked about HK independence 2 years ago. They talked about having genuine universal suffrage. What spurred this on was the Chief Executive CY Leung’s condemnation of a paper published by U of HK in 2013 which was a discussion about self-determination for HK. Every condemnation draws out even more people to the opposition and more radical stands on the issue.

I think it is not most of the people in HK. At least 1/3 of the people think HK should follow the CCP and maybe 1/3 do not care one way or the other. But there is a large contingent who seek greater autonomy from Beijing and some of their candidates may make it into Legco later this year.

4. Scandal sagas of CY Leung’s appointments
CY Leung has been replacing university council chairmans and government dept bureau chiefs with his own lackeys. The most recent one was the replacement of the Equal Opportunity commission (EOC) bureau chief, York Chow. He was the former bureau chief of the dept of Health (during SARS) but as the EOC chief, he was noted for pushing forward for some new legislation and awareness to protect civil rights, e.g., for the LGBT community and for racial minorities (ie, their education, housing and labour rights). He was replaced just last month with another (Chan Cheung Ming) who not only has been embroiled in several new scandals and controversies on the job, he has pretty much put in an about face on EOC development movement. The ex-chief York chow attended a major LGBT conference 2 weeks ago after he was ousted, but the new chief did not. But with the new scandals that he faces every week, he hopefully will not last long.

5. Bag-gate scandal
The daughter of CY Leung left a piece of luggage in the airport main terminal and she proceeded past immigration and security to her gate. Airport security protocol was violated in arranging to have airport personnel deliver her bag to her (because the protocol is for the owners of each luggage to claim and carry their own luggage). The breach of privilege has been termed “Bag-gate” and has caused former supporters to drop support for him, even lashing out at his incompetence.

6. Ming Pao editor firing
Basically we could classify local newspapers in HK as

The latter two often witness their editors own persons or their homes or offices attacked (eg, by bombs).

The Ming Pao can be considered to be a balanced moderate paper, not specifically anti-government, but they do criticize the government also. Two weeks ago, the Ming Pao’s front page featured a story on prominent HK and China government officials and tycoons implicated in the Panama papers. Since over half the names in those papers come from China and HK, it should not be hard to do. The same day at midnight, the editor was fired, citing cost cutting. Staff members do not believe it, nor does the HK journalism association. Regular columnists have been publishing blank columns in protest, and the staff has arranged many protests. Still no effect.

In 2013, the former editor was stabbed 2-3 times outside his home. He survived, but he stopped his job as editor then.

There is more going on, but this is a snapshot of things. How much is mentioned in the US press?

My main concern is the growing standoff in the South China Sea and China’s enforcement of its sovereignty rights there and beyond. Last month, a fishing vessel entered Indonesia’s waters just past China’s famous nine-dashed line, and Indonesia tried to apprehend them, but got pushed aside by the Chinese Navy.
Since then, China has been arming fishing vessels to assert their right to ply the waters and fish where they please. The have labelled it a National security objective.
The ruling from the Hague regarding the Philippines case against China should come out before July and is not expected to be that favourable to China. China has vowed to disregard it.
As you may be aware, China has reclaimed coral reefs in the South China Sea and built structures and runways on them in the past few years.

I think that the escalation of armed conflict in the S. China Sea may prove to be the rising threat to the region and even to the USA.

More reports have come out that China now may claim large parts of the pacific, including islands controlled by the USA.

My second concern is the new draconian law in China constricting foreign NGOs passed just last week. It is possible that many will be forced to leave China soon.

I forgot to mention about the film “Ten Years” which was released in Nov 2015.
It consisted of a series of 5 vignettes which depicted a dystopian HK in 2025 reflecting increasing exertion of pressure from Mainland China.

In Dec 2015, it was outperforming the other films, including Star Wars, frequently selling out, and then it was suddenly pulled from cinemas. Many people, myself included, did not get to see it at the cinema. I did attend an outdoor free screening on April 1, but the sound was poor and the screen very small for an outdoor venue, so I could not see or hear all of it clearly.

Then it was nominated for Best Picture in the annual HK film awards. Mainland China, which has been broadcasting the awards show every year since 1991, suddenly pulled it from public broadcasting. Print and online media only mentioned 20 out of 21 of the film award categories, glaringly omitting the Best Picture category. HK television programs, normally available across the border in Guangdong province and Shenzhen, were completely blacked out during the awards show.

Then, the film Ten Years won Best Picture. All news of this was blacked out in Mainland China. All online content, print media and broadcast media was scrubbed clean. No one was willing to present the award in HK as they were afraid they would be blacklisted in China.

All CCP mouthpieces in HK, blasted the event and the result even though news of it was blacked out in China.

This film issue is directly related to the meeting of Apple CEO Tim Cook in China later this month. China had approved Apple’s online stores (e.g., iTunes) in China just 6 months earlier, but abruptly ordered them all shut down in April. The reason is believed to be because Apple made available this film on iTunes.

This is a work of fiction, but is very thought provoking. I strongly suggest that you go see the film if it is shown at a film festival near you.

He is the highest official charged with Hong Kong and Macau affairs and came to Hong Kong to extol the benefits of China’s “Belt-Road Initiative”, China’s 21st silk road initiative into Central Asia, Russia, all the way to Eastern Europe and Middle East.

Zhang Dejiang was the CCP party chief for Guangdong Province during the SARS epidemic. At that time, the CCP decided not to release the information it already knew about the SARS virus and epidemic before it spread to HK, withheld information it had (ie, to the WHO and to foreign governments) after it began to spread, and jailed the whistleblowers in Guangdong province for releasing some information.

About 300 people in HK alone died from SARS and thousands more got infected with permanent injuries. Outside China, hundreds more died and thousands more were infected. It frightened the world and ruined HK’s economy. Because of the damage to the HK economy, if forced HK to become more economically and politically reliant on the mainland.

In his speech yesterday, he congratulated himself about working together with HK to combat SARS.

They were prepared by the Neo Democrats party, taking aim at Zhang – who was the top official of Guangdong in 2003. They accuse him of deliberately withholding information about the outbreak in China, leaving Hong Kong unprepared when the virus hit the city and ultimately cost 299 lives.

“The culprit Zhang Dejiang received promotions, but he never publicly explained the whole story of the pandemic, he also owes Hong Kong people a solemn apology,” the party said.

The party also said that the economic aftermath of the pandemic caused Hong Kong to rely on measures from Beijing, namely the Individual Visitor Scheme and the Mainland and Hong Kong Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement treaty.

“It set a time bomb for all sorts of confrontation between Hong Kong and China nowadays – it could be said the effects of the pandemic have continued,” it added.

When Zhang arrived in Hong Kong on Tuesday, he said at the airport that he and the Hong Kong government had achieved victory during the SARS pandemic.

Now, if ANYTHING happens to the bookstore manager LAM Wing Kee, then we KNOW that what he told us was true. He also made comments about how the HK government attacked peaceful protestors carrying no weapons during the Occupy Central Umbrella movement (got this from a Chinese language article). He has NO expectation that the HK government or the HK police will do anything to rescue any of their citizens.

Now, will the UK government continue to remain silent that China has broken the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Hong Kong Basic Law? They are the ones who can actually DO something about this. Take it to the Hague.

Sweden and UK could also do something too – each of them had their own country nationals apprehended outside of Mainland China and abducted to the mainland and held in custody for months and forced to make scripted confessions — yet their “crimes” are all for doing activities that are perfectly legal in HK.

This Mr. Lam took the courage to do the right thing. I don’t expect that the puppet HK government will do its job at all. However, will the UK continue to remain silent? What will Sweden do? Their citizen has not resurfaced for 8 months already and his daughter testified to the US congress that she believes her father was forcibly abducted and made coerced confessions.

The Economist had a good summary (albeit a bit op-ed’ish) about how the disappearance (and re-appearance) of the abducted Hong Kong booksellers has rattled HK in the post-occupy central era. It also discusses how the topic of “Independence” has entered mainstream discourse, a concept that did not show up on the public radar before “Occupy Central”.

“OF THE explanations offered for the mysterious disappearance of five Hong Kong booksellers late last year it was both the most lurid and the most plausible. As Lam Wing-kee told it on his return to Hong Kong this month, ….”

He is “guilty” of publishing books banned in Mainland China, and selling them to mainland visitors to Hong Kong or mailing books to Mainland China. However, in HK it is legal to do that. Mr. Lam broke no HK laws when he was in HK, and broke no PRC laws when he was in mainland PRC. Yet, he was abducted for 8 months with no access to a lawyer.

It mentions this:

The booksellers’ travails feed into the climate of tetchy disgruntlement that has prevailed in Hong Kong since the failure of the big street protests of the “Umbrella” movement in 2014 to prompt China to allow democratic reform there. Unusually, Hong Kong’s chief executive, Leung Chun-ying, responded to Mr Lam’s story. He said he would write to Beijing and look at procedures for liaising with the mainland’s police. It amounted to a candid admission of the constraints his government faces.

Well, the Economist article came out before that trip to Beijing. That trip turned out to be a farce. The HK officials were lectured on how Lam is a fugitive, and he needs to go back to China to turn himself in.

What CY Leung’s delegation got, instead of assurances that the “one country, two systems” principle is intact, is a nothing less than an ultimatum from the mainland authorities.

“Lam is a wanted man in China and he should return to China to face the charges,” Beijing’s Public Security Ministry told the visiting Hong Kong delegation. “We may consider taking action if he does not.”

The Economist came out with an article a couple days ago explaining the deterioration of the relationship with the police in Hong Kong over the past few years, especially since Occupy Central (ie, The Umbrella Movement).

The student leaders under both Scholarism and the Hong Kong Federation of Students (HKFS) have now been arrested for their part in inciting those protests.

I used to feel good about the police here before too (at least compared to the USA), but now, no more. Now, I see them as a continued force of instability.

We can expect to see more confrontation with the police in the days ahead, and some of it may be even more violent than last time.

HONG KONG had long been renowned for the peacefulness of its protests and the tact with which police normally handled them. So it was a shock to the territory when, in 2014, police at first responded aggressively to pro-democracy unrest that began with large-scale demonstrations and continued with weeks of sit-ins on roads. The protesters’ means of defence against the pepper spray and tear gas gave its name to the movement: the Umbrella Revolution. It ended peacefully, but the damage had been done. Growing public mistrust of a vital institution was added to longstanding anxiety about China’s political influence in the territory. This does not augur well for Hong Kong’s stability.

The student leaders under both Scholarism and the Hong Kong Federation of Students (HKFS) who were arrested and found guilty for their part in inciting those protests have now been sentenced. None will serve any jail time.

I’m sure that the shades of Chan Kwong Sang (陳廣生) 13 1967-05-12 A Student barber, beaten to death by riot police squad at Wong Tai Sin Resettlement Area, Tsui Tin Por (徐田波) 42 1967-06-08 A worker of Mechanics Division, Public Works Department, beaten to death at Wong Tai Sin Police Station after arrest.
Lai Chung (黎松) 52 1967-06-08 A worker of Towngas, shot by police in a raid, then killed by drowning,
Tsang Ming (曾明) 29 1967-06-08 A worker of Towngas, beaten to death by police in a raid,
Tang Tsz Keung (鄧自強) 30 1967-06-23 A worker of plastic products, shot by police in a raid against trade union,
Lee On (李安) 45 1967-06-26 A worker of Shaw Brothers, died while admitting to hospital from law court,
Chow Chung Sing (鄒松勝) 34 1967-06-28 A worker of plastic products, beaten to death by police after arrest,
Law Chun Kau (羅進苟) 30 1967-06-30 A worker of plastic products, beaten to death by police after arrest, are overjoyed by that news.
The Brits didn’t play around back then. You might have said a “kind” word for people like them, who made the ultimate sacrifice so that a semblance of democracy could be enjoyed by the people of HK. What am I saying? These people don’t exist, as far as members of your soigné set are concerned.
“The Hong Kong Police Force was applauded for its behaviour during the riots by the British Government. In 1969, Queen Elizabeth granted the Police Force the privilege of the “Royal” title. This title was to remain in use until the end of British rule in 1997.” Good old Lizzie, she always had a thing for brutal men!

Joseph Lian Yizheng, the former chief editor of the Hong Kong Economic Journal (HKEJ) in the 1990s, who led the HK Central Policy Unit in the early years following the 1997 return of sovereignty (1998-2003) and returned to the HKEJ to write a column, had his column terminated about a month ago. It is believed to be related to an article he ran earlier in the summer about the cases in which Hong Kong might need to consider whether to become independent or not (eg, in the case of Civil War in Mainland China – HK might need to separate itself for its own safety). He last column in the HKEJ was about 3 weeks ago.

The HKEJ and the Ming Pao are not specifically anti-government, but they do not consistently toe the party line either. They sometimes publish articles critical of the HK government or of the CCP. However, they have been thinning their ranks of journalists and editors that publish articles critical of the government. The Ming Pao fired its chief executive editor with immediate effect on the evening of the day that they published an article about the Panama papers on the front page.

Well, now. Mr. Joseph Lian Yizheng writes columns for the New York Times (both the Chinese version and English version of which is blocked in Mainland China). Last week he published a story on the aftermath of the Umbrella Movement and the growth of the Independence sentiment in Hong Kong.

How many UM members were killed by HK police?
“Well, now. Mr. Joseph Lian Yizheng writes columns for the New York Times (both the Chinese version and English version of which is blocked in Mainland China). Last week he published a story on the aftermath of the Umbrella Movement and the growth of the Independence sentiment in Hong Kong.”
“A newspaper is always a weapon in somebody’s hands.” Francis Claud Cockburn.
Once ‘independent’ where will HK get its water from? I read that 70% of that stuff comes from the mainland, was I misinformed?

One enthusiastic young man’s take on how the mood in HK has shifted from a desire for universal suffrage during the 2014 Umbrella movement to more self-autonomy, even independence by some demographics in recent months, esp. for those born after the Tiananmen square incident.

While the rest of the world is focused on the US national election, a new round of large and violent protests have broken out in Hong Kong (again). I noticed that virtually none of the Western press (and certainly none of the Chinese press) has been covering it.

In advance of tomorrow’s anticipated interpretation of the Basic Law by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPCSC), well over ten thousand protesters (and growing) have gathered in the vicinity of the China Liaison office in Western (west of Central) near the Sai Ying Pun district. Already violent clashes between police and protesters have erupted with deployment of pepper spray and batons and protesters have been arrested. Some protesters have used umbrellas to guard against pepper spray. Protesters include lawmakers and prominent representatives from most of the opposition parties.

Similar to the huge initial eruption during the 2014 Umbrella protest, they closed the Sai Ying Pun MTR (subway) station, protesters have blocked roads. It is almost 1am here and they are still active – this will last all night.

Basic message of the protest: Rule of Law and Judiciary Independence are dead. I said before that the saving grace for HK was the independent judiciary. When this goes we can say goodbye to the concept of “One Country, Two Systems”.

Yawn, get a clue dude, the HK protesters are latter day ghost dancers, their protests mean nothing in the scheme of things. Hence media indifference. HK will be absorbed by the PRC Borg. You seem to have learned nothing from my explanation on Open Thread, why HK is not viable outside the PRC.
Here are the salient facts:
1) Without PRC water HK would die of thirst
2) HK is just a gateway to PRC for foreign businesses.
3) HK’s role in PRC’s GDP has shrunk from 16% to 3% since 1997 and will continue to fall as PRC grows.
You remind me of Don Quixote tilting at windmills. Sad.

Fortunately the protest disbanded at about 3am without too many serious injuries and only 4 arrests.

However, the NPCSC has *just* delivered its interpretation, pre-empting (and effectively dictating) the Hong Kong High Court’s decision on the case. This indicates that they have no confidence in the deliberations and decisions from Hong Kong’s high court, nor in the interpretation of the law from HK’s senior experienced legal experts.

In prior interpretations from the NPCSC, the HK high court requested the interpretation. This was the first time that such an interpretation was made with no initiation from Hong Kong.

This cements the case that HK’s judiciary is not allowed to make independent rulings and determinations on its own based on the traditional common law system (on which HK’s system of laws are based).

We already knew that the Chief Executive election was determined by Beijing. Now the forced removal of two duly elected legislators and the pre-emption of the HK’s High Court decision clearly reflects that the legislature and and the judiciary is entirely under their direct control.

Although “One Country, Two Systems” has been teetering for almost 2 decades now, the current interpretation pretty much indicates where it lies now.

The author of the following article has expressed a view that this is also serving as a warning to Taiwan, which Xi wants to reunite with the PRC before the end of his term.

Oh god, no. The chief bs artist has weighed in with his two cents.
Let’s review the facts. HK was a colony stolen from China at gunpoint. The rights people talk about are due to the struggles of the HK proletariat in 1967, inspired by the Maoist Cultural Revolution. HK police brutally repressed them and PRC didn’t move a finger to liberate the territory because they found it a convenient gateway to Western capital. HK wouldn’t survive long without the benevolence of the PRC. The Quixotic stunt of a couple of jokers refusing to take the oath to the PRC means nothing, except as cynical propaganda grist for the Western propaganda mill. Enjoy it while it lasts. Meanwhile, Hollywood is busy making sure it doesn’t produce movies that the PRC censors would take umbrage at! The worm has turned!

“Is it possible for the PRC to do this without triggering a huge f’n war?”
Hysterical nonsense. Who wants to go to war with the PRC over how it manages its territory? HK exists because PRC diplomacy wishes it.

Lordy, I don’t give a flying f… about your banning me. Your claim for doing so was imaginative and total bs, as I expected. I really don’t give a damn what you think of the PRC. Try to prove that HK has a future outside of it given the following facts:
1) Without PRC water HK would die of thirst
2) HK is just a gateway to PRC for foreign businesses.
3) HK’s role in PRC’s GDP has shrunk from 16% to 3% since 1997 and will continue to fall as PRC grows.
Ghost dancers like Jefe and his friends are too far gone on their bs to reason with.
You’re probably nostalgic for the demolition job I used to do on your arguments, hence, your need to engage me on this topic.
Since I like you and don’t wish to disappoint you, here’s the exchange between me and Jefe where I give him the treatment I gave you on myriad subjects. Enjoy, feel free to refute all my claims, if you can:
” on Mon 19 Sep 2016 at 15:12:30
jefe

@Grojo

Jefe has accused me of being in the pay of China’s troll army!

Sorry, no I did not. I asked you if might be as some of your arguments are like theirs.

Really, please stop replacing all of my arguments with something completely different, and then attacking the argument that I did not make. (ie, making straw men). You did that over and over again, and not just to me.
on Mon 19 Sep 2016 at 15:58:34
jefe

70% of the water HK uses comes from China

This so-called “fact” is more by design than by necessity. It is technically a fact (actually over 70%), but as an argument, it is more flimsy than tissue paper.

Singapore (SG) used to get over 80% of its water from Malaysia. Now it is about half. By 2025, they aim to be water independent. That is by policy.

HK used to be much more independent in water before the British colony began to buy water from china (I believe in the 80s) after a couple of droughts. HK gets slightly more rainfall than SG, with mountainous terrain, so it has a much larger potential water cachement area than SG. Added to that a distinctive “cool” winter season, and the amount taken up by plants or evaporation is less. HK doesn’t even use all of the water it buys from China, and if it wanted to, could easily reduce the dependency to a lower amount, even to zero as SG is trying to do. Even if they ran low, they could always buy the water they need.

Almost all the rivers in the Pearl River delta are polluted. It might be in HK’s best interest to become more water independent to safeguard the security of its water supply.

China wants HK to be resource dependent on it. In that way, it can control it. Being resource independent would give the place more leverage in seeking more political autonomy. Some of the recently elected non-establishment Legco candidates want HK to be more resource independent (ie, food, water, energy). However, China may interpret that as subversive to state interests.
on Tue 20 Sep 2016 at 15:55:28
gro jo

Jefe wrote: “HK used to be much more independent in water before the British colony began to buy water from china (I believe in the 80s) after a couple of droughts.”
History is not your strong suit is it? You call 300 days of water rationing being independent? Water buys from China began way before the 80s.
“Until 1964 water rationing was a constant reality for Hong Kong residents, occurring more than 300 days per year. The worst crisis occurred in 1963–64 when water was delivered only every 4 days for 4 hours each time…In 1960 Hong Kong began importing water from outside its borders through the Dongjiang – Shenzhen (Dongshen) Water Supply Scheme. After many extensions and upgrades the current system consists of a pipeline from Qiaotou Town of Dongguan to a reservoir in Shenzhen next to Hong Kong. Water imports from the Pearl River have increased gradually from 23 million cubic meters per year (under a 1960 agreement) to 1100 million cubic meters per year (under a fifth agreement signed in 1989). Water imports thus played a crucial role in alleviating Hong Kong’s water crisis, accounting for 70 percent of the territory’s water supply in 1991. The People’s Republic of China has never exercised the “water weapon” in its relationship with Hong Kong. China needed foreign exchange and between 1979 and 1991 alone Hong Kong paid China almost 4 billion Hong Kong Dollars (about US$500 million applying the 1991 exchange rate) for water imports.[2]” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_Hong_Kong
You are as absurdly wrong about this as you were about the Chinese being in North America before Africans, the wisdom of Philippines imposed “arbitration and the motive for China’s tobacco policy. Yeah, I know, you were just speculating. That’s true of all your comments. What I want to know is what do you really know? People on this blog take you seriously because you are of partial Chinese ancestry and live in HK. I’m not impressed with any of these things. Your comments indicate to me you don’t know much.
According to the Economist, “Hong Kong is clearly less important than in the past. Its GDP has shrunk from 16% of China’s in 1997, the year it was returned to Chinese control, to 3% today.”
What’s the use of HK to China? From the same Economist article we learn the following: “Hong Kong has proved to be more reliable than the mainland as a source of equity financing. Since 2012, Chinese companies have raised $43 billion in initial public offerings in the Hong Kong market, versus just $25 billion on mainland exchanges, according to Dealogic. More than anywhere else in the world, Hong Kong has also provided Chinese companies with access to global capital markets for bond and loan financing. What’s more, Hong Kong is the key hub for investment in and out of China. It accounted for two-thirds of foreign direct investment into China last year, up from 30% in 2005…Over the past five years, the Chinese government has made the city a testing ground for a range of financial reforms: the yuan’s path towards acceptance as a global currency began in Hong Kong in 2009 with an experiment in trade settlement; Hong Kong is also home to the biggest “dim sum” bond market—yuan-denominated debt that is issued overseas; and a soon-to-be-launched programme that will for the first time allow any foreign investor to buy China-listed shares will be conducted via the Hong Kong stock exchange. Hong Kong has been only too willing to host these experiments believing, rightly, that they are crucial to its survival as a thriving financial centre…In short, China has benefited greatly from Hong Kong’s unique status. It is a city that is sealed off from the mainland but closely connected to it; a territory that is fully integrated into the global economy but ultimately controlled by the Communist Party in Beijing. Even with its unique status, however, there is no question where the balance of power lies in Hong Kong’s relationship with China: about half of Hong Kong’s exports end up in China; one-fifth of its bank assets are loans to Chinese customers; and tourism and retail spending, mostly from China, account for 10% of Hong Kong’s GDP. In the opposite direction, the Chinese economy’s direct exposure to Hong Kong is vanishingly small.” The Economist explains
Why Hong Kong remains vital to China’s economy
Sep 30th 2014, 23:50 by S.R.
Did HK become more independent since this was written almost two years ago? I don’t think so.

Like

on Tue 20 Sep 2016 at 16:24:07
gro jo

“HK gets slightly more rainfall than SG, with mountainous terrain, so it has a much larger potential water cachement area than SG. Added to that a distinctive “cool” winter season, and the amount taken up by plants or evaporation is less. HK doesn’t even use all of the water it buys from China, and if it wanted to, could easily reduce the dependency to a lower amount, even to zero as SG is trying to do. Even if they ran low, they could always buy the water they need. ”
Everything you write should be fact checked. The following statements from Wikipedia articles on water management in Singapore and HK give the lie to your assertions: “Providing an adequate water supply for Hong Kong has always been difficult because the region has few natural lakes and rivers, inadequate groundwater sources (inaccessible in most cases due to the hard granite bedrock found in most areas in the territory), a high population density, and extreme seasonable variations in rainfall. Thus about 70 percent of water demand is met by importing water from the Dongjiang River in neighbouring Guangdong province. In addition, freshwater demand is curtailed by the use of seawater for toilet flushing, using a separate distribution system.[1]” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_Hong_Kong
“The water resources of Singapore are especially precious given the small amount of densely settled land. Singapore receives an average of 2,400mm of rainfall annually, well above the global average of 1,050mm. The constraint is the limited land area to catch and store the rainfall, and the absence of natural aquifers and lakes.[5] ” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_Singapore
CONCLUSION: JEFE PLAYS FAST AND LOOSE WITH THE FACTS.”

Lordy, Nice to see that you’re hitting senility in your 20s, or you’re lying as usual. You banned me for being a “racist”, “Afrocentrist”.
Here’s the full quote from your blog:
“Gro Jo. Also racist, though I do not know if he met the strict standards of a troll. He was a racist for the opposite side from EPGAH – an Afrocentrist. Began plaguing this blog in May 2015. He actually got himself briefly banned in June of the same year, but I lifted the sentence after five days, thinking it was perhaps too harsh. He has applauded the genocide of French Haitians, openly mocked Irish people, and thinks the Civil War had no long-term effects on American history. He was banned on July 22, 2016, for going off topic after warnings.”
I wasn’t shocked or angry, it only confirmed what I knew. You are stupid.

“Is your reading comprehension still on a pre-kindergarten level? In the very passage you quoted, I write,

He was banned on July 22, 2016, for going off topic after warnings.”
Cretinous as usual. That’s what you claimed. Being a liar. Your notion of what’s off topic is bs used to cover your weak arguments.The rest of your comment is the usual grandstanding bs I’ve come to expect from you. I’ve no interest in entertaining you. Move along if you can’t give the lie to what I wrote. For your information, t’aint such thing as “French Haitians”. Haiti gave all whites willing to live on equal terms with blacks full citizenship. The rest were killed or allowed to go elsewhere. Dessalines had the good sense not to tolerate vipers. To bad he wasn’t emulated by those who followed him.

I don’t mean to downplay the events in Hong Kong — but this is really disturbing. Is it possible for the PRC to do this without triggering a huge f’n war?

Well, it looks like so far, it can use its international and economic might to choke it off and demonstrate to Taiwan that it calls the shots, eg,
– ask foreign countries (esp. those that are not strictly aligned to the USA) to extradite overseas Taiwanese to mainland PRC
– cut off mainlanders’ access to visit or do business in Taiwan
– force other countries to cut off economic and diplomatic ties
– continue to block it from any international body or joining any international agreement

But, the premise that the US will come to the aid of Taiwan should the PRC invade – this might the be main thing that restrains the PRC from simply recovering Taiwan.

So,
– it can pluck off other countries with former alliances with the USA, eg, Philippines and Malaysia
– use economic carrot sticks to encourage neighboring countries to give up their sovereignty
– beef up military build up in the East and South China seas
– use HK as a lesson for Taiwan (albeit a “negative” lesson, not a positive one – if they are trying to show Taiwan how “One Country, Two Systems” works, then they are not doing a very good job – it’s more like a case of – See, we can do what we want).

And they can weaken the position of USA in the region bit by bit, maybe until the point that that they feel confident that they can recover Taiwan with minimal destruction.

I still have to determine how Japan figures into all this. One the one hand, Japan was a former colonial ruler in Taiwan but, how do both sides feel about an alliance to resist mainland encroachment or recovery. What are Japan’s interests in this case?

“I still have to determine how Japan figures into all this. One the one hand, Japan was a former colonial ruler in Taiwan but, how do both sides feel about an alliance to resist mainland encroachment or recovery. What are Japan’s interests in this case?”
In other words, you are for “regime change” in the PRC, which includes HK. Good to know. By the way, how many divisions do you think are necessary for your desideratum to come to pass?

“My questions about your position on Hong Kong still stand. If you can’t answer them, then I will have to draw some more of my own conclusions about you.”
Dopey, save your grandstanding for someone who cares. All I want from you is to challenge what I wrote about HK and the PRC. The PRC is the sole sovereign in HK since 1997. Who cares if you, Jefe and others don’t like it? Not me. I destroyed Jefe’s stupid claims because Abagond was too ignorant or lazy to do so, and the naïfs like you take him as some kind of ‘expert’. The man is a joke. Run along and don’t come back until you can make a serious argument for HK’s viability as an independent entity. Clearly, Jefe’s claim that “Some of the recently elected non-establishment Legco candidates want HK to be more resource independent (ie, food, water, energy). However, China may interpret that as subversive to state interests.” is based on his ignorance and I suspect, from smoking too much “wacky tabbacky”.

Jefe, you crack me up. The articles you link to indicate that HK residents should tighten their belts if they want to be “independent”. How absurd you are. To be blunt, HK is part of the PRC since 1997. The boys in Beijing are not going to let it walk away anymore than Lincoln let the South walk away. The modern state operates on the “roach motel” principle: Once you check in you never check out. The idiocies you’re pushing would only get a lot of people killed. I don’t doubt that the “boys” can be as violent as “Lizzie” was in 1967.

“Maybe the US Congress will have to replace the 1992 US-Hong Kong relations act before the UK is embarrassed to the point of having to act.”
Please tell us what they should do about it, take back HK? Lol.

The unprecedented Hong Kong government crackdown on the pro-democracy movement continues apace, and this month is set to be its busiest yet. Below is an overview of January court dates in government prosecutions of pro-democracy leaders and activists: four trials definitely, six trials probably, and 52 defendants.

US lawmakers including the Republican senator Marco Rubio have nominated Joshua Wong and Hong Kong’s umbrella protest movement for the 2018 Nobel peace prize in recognition of their non-violent quest for democracy.

The group of US politicians nominated activists Joshua Wong, Nathan Law, Alex Chow, and the entire pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong “in recognition of their peaceful efforts to bring political reform and self-determination to Hong Kong and protect the autonomy and freedom guaranteed Hong Kong in the Sino-British Joint Declaration.”

2 million people took to the streets yesterday in protest, 27% of the territory’s population (or well over one in three of the 18-65 population). The HK government will still not withdraw the bill. And the Chief Executive refuses to step down.

These protests will continue and continue.We have not seen the end.

They are using different tactics from the Umbrella movement. They will not set up a permanent stage or stay in a permanent location. They will be more tactical in their assembly.

” The English language China Daily is hilarious:
Parents in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region took to the streets on Sunday to urge US politicians to not interfere with the SAR’s extradition amendments and its internal affairs.
It gave focus to an alliance of 30 local political, business and legal dignitaries who condemned the US “for stirring up youth against extradition bill.”
It discussed 30 people protesting at the US consulate, meanwhile 3 blocks away 2 million people were packed in the streets protesting against the amendment bill and they didn’t mention that at all.”
Oh no, the horror. Francis Claud Cockburn was on the money when he wrote: ” A newspaper is always a weapon in somebody’s hands.”
Jefe, your Johnny on the spot reportage is appreciated, now how about your reflection on where this is going?
Now that relations with the USA and its allies is breaking down, what role do you see HK playing in the full court press deployed against the PRC and how likely will the PRC cave in and admit defeat?
Was this bill a PRC initiative or the HK government’s?

Interesting comparison between how the recent protests are covered in Hong Kong and overseas to how they are covered inside Mainland China. The narrative there is tightly controlled to reveal that it is the result of the US meddling in HK affairs and causing HK people to “riot”.

No one in HK believes that, as the protest and the protesters were by and large peaceful and orderly. Can you imagine 2 million people walking right past high end shops and shopping malls and restaurants and hotels and convenience stores open along the route without any evidence of damage or theft — ie, no looting at all.

Some in HK do believe that the US government supports the Hong Kong people as a result of the protests (I have heard that) but not that the US caused them in the first place.

This might offer some insight of what people in Hong Kong fear. If they share information that conflicts with the official narrative, that could be perceived as breaking laws in China.

Mind you, just down the hill a few blocks away were 2 million protesting against it. Yet the China daily reported on the protest at the US consulate and completely neglected the protest against the HK govt.

The Central Government offices, including the Legislative council was shut down, as well as several other government offices and the Central Police station, all by protesters who suddenly showed up.

Unlike last week, the police did not use force to disperse the crowd.

To put this in perspective, imagine if a sudden crowd of peaceful and unarmed protesters managed to shut down the US Congress, the White House, several administration buildings, the Federal protective service and the Main police station, basically bringing most of the government to a standstill.

Speaking of Carrie Lam, Hong Kong’s Chief Executive:

“To not keep even the central government headquarters open, to not keep the police headquarters open, it’s a big humiliation,” said Willy Lam, a political analyst who teaches at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. “It means basically she has lost the ability to govern effectively.”

Yet, she cannot step down, even if she wanted to (and I am sure she does) without Beijing identifying and anointing a suitable replacement first. Nobody would dare want this job now. Hong Kong has become ungovernable and there is no clear way out.

These protests are not going away any time soon. And unlike the Umbrella protests in 2014 (and the protests in 2003, or even the riots back in the late 60s), they are using much more tactical, off the grid strategies, with no violence towards police, and little if any destruction of public or personal property, no fixed location and no clear leader. Is there such a term as “nonviolent guerrilla protests” that vary from a few thousand participants to millions from day to day?

Very telling choice of words. The Mao inspired uprising of the working class were ‘riots’ that ‘honest and respectable’ people like you wanted nothing to do with. The sad part about it was that Mao and company betrayed them. China could have ended Britain’s rule in HK by cutting off the water supply until the British left.

“they are using much more tactical, off the grid strategies, with no violence towards police, and little if any destruction of public or personal property, no fixed location and no clear leader. Is there such a term as “nonviolent guerrilla protests” that vary from a few thousand participants to millions from day to day?”

How long will they keep it up? How long will the state remain ‘nonviolent’? What are the basis demands aside from Carrie Lam’s resignation? Why does Carrie Lam make me think of “Carrie Anne” by the Hollies?

Stephen Vines, a UK born journalist who has been in HK for over 30 years and has worked for all the major English language newspapers and TV in HK (but largely an independent commentator now) has opined on the next step:

Not only was the CCP leadership caught by surprise, but those politicians who were reliably counted as stalwarts to support the government are now no longer so. Many of them are spooked. So are the police.

<

blockquote> A combination of outright lies, tone-deaf responses, desperate measures and sheer inability to understand what’s happening means that even people who are supposed to be in the pro-government camp can no longer be relied upon to support the government.

<

blockquote>

Vines expects more infiltration of the CCP (not less) into HK affairs, and it won’t be pretty.

Like the class bully, the party will carry on bullying those considered to be weak and vulnerable but will not try their luck with opponents who can hit back. Thus when something like one in four of Hong Kong’s population take to the streets in protest, they recognize that they have met their match.

However, it is hardly realistic to assume that the democracy movement can indefinitely mobilize protests of this size. If this massive burst of activity is not replaced by other forms of pressure the bullies will have no hesitation in coming back and doing what they do best.

The feint hearts who never understood the power and determination of Hongkongers are now urging the people to go back home and savour their victory. They may mean well but this is brainless nonsense because silence is just what the Communist Party looks forward to. The comrades see silence as weakness and will act accordingly.

So, mass protests, of the 2 million strong variety, will not deter the CCP from reorganizing strategies to deal with this. They will up their measures. So, that may push the opposition to up theirs. What I see happening is more engagement from other countries, especially the US, with the passage of the HK Human Rights and Democracy Act, and more acceptance of asylum seekers from HK, like the recent cases in Germany. It is no wonder that the main criticism of the HK protests by the CCP is “foreign interference” and not so much homegrown sentiment. That is probably the next battle ground, and I think it will erupt in a couple years.

After that? Who knows? Taiwan declaring independence? South China Sea?

“So, mass protests, of the 2 million strong variety, will not deter the CCP from reorganizing strategies to deal with this. They will up their measures. So, that may push the opposition to up theirs. What I see happening is more engagement from other countries, especially the US, with the passage of the HK Human Rights and Democracy Act, and more acceptance of asylum seekers from HK, like the recent cases in Germany. It is no wonder that the main criticism of the HK protests by the CCP is “foreign interference” and not so much homegrown sentiment. That is probably the next battle ground, and I think it will erupt in a couple years.”
Once again the people of HK will be small change in the diplomatic maneuvers of foreign powers against the PRC. A dismal fate given the fact that Britain already ‘sold’ them to the PRC in 1997. It seems to me that the PRC is quiet adept at that game and will play along as long as FDIs keep coming from HK.
“After that? Who knows? Taiwan declaring independence? South China Sea?”
In other words, war. Very dismal indeed.

September 28 marks the 5th anniversary of “Occupy Central” later referred to as the Umbrella movement.

Legal scholar and author Jason Ng penned an article to take a quick glance at where Hong Kong has been and progressed to in the intervening five years. Indeed, I concur that the movement 5 years ago was a direct precursor to where we are now, and the Umbrella movement, although deemed a failure, is what is really responsible for the political awakening in Hong Kong.

I do see it as a turning point where the government pretty much stopped engagement with civil society and the people found a new way to do it. It also led to a new blossoming of self-expression.

I borrowed a copy of his book, “Umbrellas in Bloom” written in 2015 after that movement, but alas, I have only read bits and pieces of it and I have to get back to it. It is still right on my shelf and I will read it for sure. Maybe it will help solidify my understanding of how we got to where we are today. And, although I don’t know Jason Ng personally, many of my friends do, so maybe it will be sooner or later that I will meet him in person.

Jefe,
A factual post from you without your usual “alternative facts”, what is the world coming to?
Mr. Ng sounds like a sane and rational man, will he and others like him engage Carrie Lam and HK’s elite to solve the shocking disparities that exist in HK?
Blaming the CCP for everything that goes wrong there is a dead end.

Are you done lying about how things stand in HK and the PRC and gaslighting the unwary on this blog? You know, claiming that HK “…still holds more foreign currency reserves than the rest of China…” When in fact, its holdings amount to 13.9%($0.4328 trillion/ $3.107 trillion). that of the PRC.

How about your claim that “The actual usage of the bridge (Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge) since opening is only a fraction of the projections. It is not paying for itself and probably never will, and the HK government is shouldering most of the cost.” When, in fact, “…over 10 million inbound and outbound passengers as of Thursday, 225 days after its official opening.” have used it and its cost is paid for in the following manner: “In March 2009, it was further reported that China’s Central Government, Hong Kong and Macau agreed to finance 22 percent of the total costs. The remaining 78 percent consisted of loans (approximately 57.3 billion yuan or US$8.4 billion) from a consortium of banks led by Bank of China.[26]”. See the Wikipedia article on the bridge.”

Another false claim you made: “Indeed, there are those in the CCP who hope that HK can be crushed to ashes so that the benevolent CCP can rush in and resuscitate it. But until then, it is more a matter of the CCP trying to suck HK dry of its reserves and capital more than the other way around.”
How does the CCP ‘suck HK dry’ when the Basic Law governing Hong Kong states: ” Under Article 108 of the Basic Law of Hong Kong, the taxation system in Hong Kong is independent of, and different from, the taxation system in mainland China. In addition, under Article 106 of the Hong Kong Basic Law, Hong Kong enjoys independent public finance, and NO TAX REVENUE IS HANDED OVER TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN CHINA. Wikipedia”